Northumberland County Council had been forced to see sense over the White Paper.
No more private thoughts of Chairman Mao, sorry, Bill ‘Bullet’ Brooks being publicised through the Council, no more private aspirations of Henchman Hillman.
We wus wrong folks.
In Billy’s absence, Peter the Grate has authorised expensive advertising for his single unitary quest. No mention that the NCC doesn’t back it.
The glossy magazines are a travesty of what little vestige of democracy they have left up at County Hall
No mention that the majority at County Hall oppose it!
But no-one cares, now Billy and Peter understand they are gone, as of a re-shuffle in May.
With John (Middlesborough) Whiteman waiting in the wings to recapture the leadership the die is set.
One last attempt to knock sense into the pair of them.
No one wants the single council.
No one supports it.
All seven councils, all the MPs and the people want two councils.
Now three polls, a referendum and two newspaper polls (NEWS POST and Hexham Courant)
And yet we still see our council tax being wasted!
Peter – get a life, better still get a proper job! And let the peoples choice have a straight path.
A quote for you all, seeing as how Dave The Rave Mongomery has a cob on at the minute with the NPL.
With the Times it must be true.
Counties fly the white paper!
…..the expected reorganisation of two tier authorities is going ahead at a pace.
Whilst only 8 areas were to be selected at first we understand from sources that the number will be increased.
Ceratainly the ‘competition’ for survival has thrown up several casualties, the first of which appears to be Northumberland County Council.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Thought we lived in a free country ? CC Montgomery
David Montgomery (Photo)
At lest the NEWS POST Leader informs us of whats happening in Northumberland , all you want to do at County Hall is hide it away ?
Police say press story was 'factually correct'
COUNTY councillors, angry over a story about school violence in the News Post Leader, were told by a police officer at a meeting last week that, factually, the story was correct.
Members of a scrutiny committee were critical of an article concerning the number of police calls to schools in the area.But Sergeant Steve Cochrane, who was at the meeting, told the councillors: "Factually it (the article] is correct."There were five incidents related to these schools surrounding weapons."But there is a need for a mutual understanding of what 'weapons' are."I think that is why it could be seen to be misleading."The newspaper's Freedom of Information request had asked the police to provide information on the number of violent incidents, which included violence, fighting and offensive behaviour, firearms, sexual offences, robbery and kidnapping.The police said, in reply, that 85 incidents occurred, of which five involved weapons, between October 1, 2005 and September 30, 2006.They also provided a list of the 40 schools where the incidents took place.Coun David Montgomery claimed the newspaper regularly attacked the council and said: "We deal with this on a weekly basis from the News Post Leader and we should robustly challenge them."We should be putting a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about this."Trevor Doughty, the director of children's services, added: "The council would see a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission very much as a last resort – we do not have enough evidence and we cannot go to the PCC every time we feel we have been wronged."Portfolio holder for health and welfare, Coun Tony Reid, said the council took anti-social behaviour in schools seriously."It is one of the council's priorities and we are doing all we possibly can to address it and we are pulling out all the stops."The article shows that we get the headlines."We don't have any major problems in Northumberland, but this is how schools generate problems."I don't believe that Northumberland is worse than any other authority and we have a first class record."Councillors also complained that News Post Leader editor Ross Weeks backed up the reporter's story and declined to publish an apology.
02 February 2007
COUNTY councillors, angry over a story about school violence in the News Post Leader, were told by a police officer at a meeting last week that, factually, the story was correct.
Members of a scrutiny committee were critical of an article concerning the number of police calls to schools in the area.But Sergeant Steve Cochrane, who was at the meeting, told the councillors: "Factually it (the article] is correct."There were five incidents related to these schools surrounding weapons."But there is a need for a mutual understanding of what 'weapons' are."I think that is why it could be seen to be misleading."The newspaper's Freedom of Information request had asked the police to provide information on the number of violent incidents, which included violence, fighting and offensive behaviour, firearms, sexual offences, robbery and kidnapping.The police said, in reply, that 85 incidents occurred, of which five involved weapons, between October 1, 2005 and September 30, 2006.They also provided a list of the 40 schools where the incidents took place.Coun David Montgomery claimed the newspaper regularly attacked the council and said: "We deal with this on a weekly basis from the News Post Leader and we should robustly challenge them."We should be putting a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about this."Trevor Doughty, the director of children's services, added: "The council would see a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission very much as a last resort – we do not have enough evidence and we cannot go to the PCC every time we feel we have been wronged."Portfolio holder for health and welfare, Coun Tony Reid, said the council took anti-social behaviour in schools seriously."It is one of the council's priorities and we are doing all we possibly can to address it and we are pulling out all the stops."The article shows that we get the headlines."We don't have any major problems in Northumberland, but this is how schools generate problems."I don't believe that Northumberland is worse than any other authority and we have a first class record."Councillors also complained that News Post Leader editor Ross Weeks backed up the reporter's story and declined to publish an apology.
02 February 2007
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
From the Guardian, 31 January 2007
Even the press are saying Northumberland County Council should feel vulnerable
In Northumberland, the county council should feel vulnerable. In a subsidiary question in the north-east devolution referendum just over two years ago, which delivered a crushing "no" vote against a regional elected assembly, voters said they wanted the county scrapped in favour of two unitaries. Yet still the county council is seeking all-purpose status, although the six districts of Northumberland claim they could save £1.3bn a year if the county was split between its urban south-east and the rural north and west.
In Northumberland, the county council should feel vulnerable. In a subsidiary question in the north-east devolution referendum just over two years ago, which delivered a crushing "no" vote against a regional elected assembly, voters said they wanted the county scrapped in favour of two unitaries. Yet still the county council is seeking all-purpose status, although the six districts of Northumberland claim they could save £1.3bn a year if the county was split between its urban south-east and the rural north and west.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Peter you voted to support both bids at the full council
According to Peter Hillman" the county will shortly embark on a public consultation exercise aimed at giving people full details about its bid for a single unitary. Roadshows, public meetings and discussion forums will be used to inform and consult the public about the submission.
The Submission supports both bids as Northumberland County Council voted to go foreward with both bids, the motion was put by the leader Bill Brooks to save face as they believed they could not carry the vote in the chamber on the day.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Bill and Peter in negotiations with the Liberals ?
Its also why Bill and Peter have been in negotiations with the Liberals on a bid for joint local governance – not even your executive knew about that now did they Billy?
This week saw unedifying spectacle of a lone County Council Deputy Leader presenting, or rather sending off his and Bill 'The Bullet' Brooks’s vision of what a brand new Council fro Northumberland would look like.
Forget that, in their world new means a council the same size as the County run with the same councilors by the same leadership, elected under the same rules.
It is a vision that does not have any support in Northumberland sorry stakeholder support such as Sage from Newcastle and the NECC from Durham is evident, only just.
We also saw this week leaders from all 6 Districts united in their vision and bid for a whole new system of governance in Northumberland, lead the ‘Peoples Choice’ bid away to London, to be met by all four MPs who support the two council bid.
It is now up to Government to announce which bids get through the first tests in March before the Ministers take it up to the final decision in July.
But we didn’t have to leave it to the Government did we.
All 7 Councils support the two council bid so the County Council could have put just the one bid forward…..but it doesn’t work like that does it?
With The Bullet and Peter The Great still in awe of their Senior Officers they will do what the officers tell them to do.
Just a couple of things to come over the desk.
We understand now the reason for the gap in expected savings at County.
They plan to install parking charges in South-East Northumberland at £1 an hour.
Its no wonder that businesses and organizations are now backing away from their support at County.
Its also why Bill and Peter have been in negotiations with the Liberals on a bid for joint local governance – not even your executive knew about that now did they Billy?
This week saw unedifying spectacle of a lone County Council Deputy Leader presenting, or rather sending off his and Bill 'The Bullet' Brooks’s vision of what a brand new Council fro Northumberland would look like.
Forget that, in their world new means a council the same size as the County run with the same councilors by the same leadership, elected under the same rules.
It is a vision that does not have any support in Northumberland sorry stakeholder support such as Sage from Newcastle and the NECC from Durham is evident, only just.
We also saw this week leaders from all 6 Districts united in their vision and bid for a whole new system of governance in Northumberland, lead the ‘Peoples Choice’ bid away to London, to be met by all four MPs who support the two council bid.
It is now up to Government to announce which bids get through the first tests in March before the Ministers take it up to the final decision in July.
But we didn’t have to leave it to the Government did we.
All 7 Councils support the two council bid so the County Council could have put just the one bid forward…..but it doesn’t work like that does it?
With The Bullet and Peter The Great still in awe of their Senior Officers they will do what the officers tell them to do.
Just a couple of things to come over the desk.
We understand now the reason for the gap in expected savings at County.
They plan to install parking charges in South-East Northumberland at £1 an hour.
Its no wonder that businesses and organizations are now backing away from their support at County.
Its also why Bill and Peter have been in negotiations with the Liberals on a bid for joint local governance – not even your executive knew about that now did they Billy?
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Northumberland Today, Massive backing for a rural authority
Robert Arkless, Northumberland County Council, & Amble ward councillor
Massive backing for rural authority
DISTRICT leaders have overwhelmingly backed the creation of two unitary authorities for Northumberland.
Alnwick District Council voted 24 to two in favour of supporting One Northumberland Two Councils, in line with the other five district councils.
Only Couns Robert Arckless and Betty Gray, who both represent Amble, voted against.
The submission calls for two bodies to serve the county – Rural Northumberland Council, encompassing Alnwick, Berwick, Castle Morpeth and Tynedale districts, and South East Northumberland Council, covering Blyth and Wansbeck districts.
The Government has given councils in Northumberland until next Thursday to respond to its White Paper which paves the way for reform.
Tuesday night’s vote followed the failure of Northumberland County Council on Monday to back a single unitary authority, as first indicated, over fears of an uprising.
The county council will put forward the option of a single authority for Northumberland but will also endorse the two-council option.
District leader Coun Heather Cairns said: “We have hit all the markers put in the White Paper. We believe this submission to be financially viable, we believe it demonstrates strong leadership, we believe it will deliver services at a local level and we believe it will be democratically accountable.”
Council chief executive Bill Batey told members that he had received more than 30 letters of support from local organisations for the two-council plan and a number from individuals.
Coun Gordon Castle said: “There is no groundswell or clamour for a single unitary authority by people. We know that because we are close to the people.
“Currently there are no members on the county council’s executive from Alnwick district or Berwick borough so what representation do we have now?
“A single unitary authority would be cast on exactly the same way with exactly the same imbalance.”
Supporting the two-council bid, Coun Jeff Watson said: “It was a complete cop-out by the county council. I’m pleased we will almost be unanimous.”
He told members he believed the Government would reject the reform.
He said: “Why choose Northumberland to impose a new form of government when there isn’t a consensus. I hope and trust this Government – which I don’t support – come back to us and say ‘get on with what you’ve got’.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
More on the Debate from Hansard
I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), and I want to present what is a rather simpler picture in Northumberland than the complicated cross-currents of opinion that exist in Carlisle. I have been helped in what I am about to say by an earlier intervention from the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), who, in a slight slip of the tongue, referred to a two-tier option when he meant the two-council option; however, he made his position very clear.
Like the hon. Member for Carlisle, I believe that unitary local government has considerable advantages, not least because it is easier for the electorate to understand, and because local authorities then tend to have a bigger critical mass of services and staff within which they can make changes and adjustments denied under the two-tier system. It is difficult, however, to implement unitary local government in Northumberland; indeed, we have found it difficult every time such a reorganisation has been considered. At the moment we have a county council and six districts, but the size of the county makes things very difficult. It is more than 100 miles from end to end, and contains two very different types of area: a highly concentrated urban south-east core, and a large rural area stretching from Berwick, in the north of my constituency, to Haltwhistle, which borders on Cumbria.
I want to suggest to the Minister how he might consider the bids that will emerge from Northumberland. To start with, he should remember that when the unitary question was put to a referendum at the time of the regional referendum, there was a clear vote—some 56 per cent.—in favour of two unitary authorities for Northumberland, not one. The votes were broken down according to the way in which the regional referendum was conducted, and in my own rural area the majority in favour of two authorities was much higher even than in the referendum as a whole. It was clear that there was no consensus for a single county-wide unitary authority.
The Labour leadership of the county council simply ignored that fact and decided to go ahead and put to the Minister a proposal for a single unitary county authority—against the wishes of many of their own councillors. Indeed, the leadership did not even seek the council's support for the proposition until last week. The Minister will have received letters, deputations, visits and all sorts from the Labour leadership of Northumberland county council, but they never sought the support of the council for their proposition.
Meanwhile, the Northumberland districts showed surprising consensus. Bearing in mind all the past difficulties, I was surprised that all six districts agreed that a twin unitary authority solution was the right way to go.
Add your comment
Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source
The right hon. Gentleman is right to mention the decision that the Labour group took last week. In fact, it was a very narrow decision; the leadership were about to lose the vote, until they reached a compromise. Labour councillors were not going to vote for it, which shows how far apart the leadership were from their own council.
Add your comment
A J Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed, Liberal Democrat) Link to this | Hansard source
Indeed, and I shall deal with this point in a little more detail in a moment. Perhaps both the hon. Gentleman and I should declare an interest, in that both our wives happen to be members of the county council. We both disagree with the view that the county leadership have been putting forward. [Interruption.] We both agree with our wives about this issue; indeed, all four of us agree with each other. In fact, all four of the county's Members of Parliament agree on this issue, as I shall shortly explain.
The districts put together a proposal for two unitary authorities which is an impressive feat of consensus. What really struck me was the fact that they had recognised that different issues would confront the two authorities. The more urban of the two authorities, they said, would primarily face issues such as health inequality, low educational attainment, access to employment, crime and disorder, and synergy with the wider city region based in Newcastle, whereas the dominant issues for the more rural authority would be access to services, market town sustainability, tourism and economic diversification, affordable housing, transport and the condition of the highways. There were different strings of issues, from which I have merely cited some examples.
That was a revealing analysis. We are talking about two different areas that face rather different problems. They obviously have some problems in common with other parts of the country, but there are some striking differences. The financial calculations, which are notoriously unreliable in any local government reorganisation proposal, did not show huge differences between what could be achieved by having two authorities and by having one.
I turn to the point that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley so vividly portrayed. When the county leaders put their single-council plan to the council, they realised in the end that they could not win—that they simply did not have the votes—although extremely strong letters had been sent to Labour councillors, saying that if they did not toe the line they would be expelled, and would not be allowed to stand in the district council elections later this year. That was a pretty serious threat, which they nevertheless continued to withstand. I should explain that in the meantime, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) had written to Conservatives in the area, saying that they should not support any change at all, although quite a number of them were by that time firmly committed to the two-council option.
The council's Labour leadership realised that they were not going to get their proposal through, so at the very last minute a revised motion—it was not on the agenda paper; councillors did not have it beforehand—was produced, containing the following wonderful words:
"Council...Endorse the submission of a single unitary proposal in the context of county support for the submission of both a single unitary by the County Council and two unitary councils by the district councils."
In other words, they could take their pick. As the county leader said at the meeting, the Government are going to decide which one to have, anyway. So the council leadership could not get their own proposal through their own council.
The bid was very complex, involving adding 22 neighbourhood structures. One factor that influenced a lot of people was the county's failure to deliver for rural areas. Opinion probably swung even more behind the two-authority solution when it was realised that the county had an institutional inability to cope with some of the rural problems. The Minister for Schools has taken a close interest in a very vivid example of such problems, and he has recognised that further work needs to be done. In trying to deal with school transport issues, the county ended up imposing a very high charge for school transport for over-16s. It decided to charge £360 per child aged over 16 for transport to school in the rural areas of the county. That does not happen in Cumbria. The council also withdrew train passes from students from Berwick who were travelling to college in Newcastle and told them to go on the bus, which took one and three quarter hours. The usage of the bus has fallen to five people, because it is such an impossible way to travel to college. That is one example of how the decision-making structure of the county did not enable the rural aspects to be considered.
Another example is the executive, which does not have a single member from either the Alnwick district or the Berwick borough, and has only one from Tynedale. That reflects the partisan differences between the different areas, but those differences would be writ large in a single unitary authority. Whichever part of the authority managed to gain control of the executive, the rest would feel very left out. The two-council alternative is more attractive and more popular.
Add your comment
Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we were to have a referendum, support for the two unitary authorities, in his area and mine, would be overwhelming?
Add your comment
A J Beith
Like the hon. Member for Carlisle, I believe that unitary local government has considerable advantages, not least because it is easier for the electorate to understand, and because local authorities then tend to have a bigger critical mass of services and staff within which they can make changes and adjustments denied under the two-tier system. It is difficult, however, to implement unitary local government in Northumberland; indeed, we have found it difficult every time such a reorganisation has been considered. At the moment we have a county council and six districts, but the size of the county makes things very difficult. It is more than 100 miles from end to end, and contains two very different types of area: a highly concentrated urban south-east core, and a large rural area stretching from Berwick, in the north of my constituency, to Haltwhistle, which borders on Cumbria.
I want to suggest to the Minister how he might consider the bids that will emerge from Northumberland. To start with, he should remember that when the unitary question was put to a referendum at the time of the regional referendum, there was a clear vote—some 56 per cent.—in favour of two unitary authorities for Northumberland, not one. The votes were broken down according to the way in which the regional referendum was conducted, and in my own rural area the majority in favour of two authorities was much higher even than in the referendum as a whole. It was clear that there was no consensus for a single county-wide unitary authority.
The Labour leadership of the county council simply ignored that fact and decided to go ahead and put to the Minister a proposal for a single unitary county authority—against the wishes of many of their own councillors. Indeed, the leadership did not even seek the council's support for the proposition until last week. The Minister will have received letters, deputations, visits and all sorts from the Labour leadership of Northumberland county council, but they never sought the support of the council for their proposition.
Meanwhile, the Northumberland districts showed surprising consensus. Bearing in mind all the past difficulties, I was surprised that all six districts agreed that a twin unitary authority solution was the right way to go.
Add your comment
Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source
The right hon. Gentleman is right to mention the decision that the Labour group took last week. In fact, it was a very narrow decision; the leadership were about to lose the vote, until they reached a compromise. Labour councillors were not going to vote for it, which shows how far apart the leadership were from their own council.
Add your comment
A J Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed, Liberal Democrat) Link to this | Hansard source
Indeed, and I shall deal with this point in a little more detail in a moment. Perhaps both the hon. Gentleman and I should declare an interest, in that both our wives happen to be members of the county council. We both disagree with the view that the county leadership have been putting forward. [Interruption.] We both agree with our wives about this issue; indeed, all four of us agree with each other. In fact, all four of the county's Members of Parliament agree on this issue, as I shall shortly explain.
The districts put together a proposal for two unitary authorities which is an impressive feat of consensus. What really struck me was the fact that they had recognised that different issues would confront the two authorities. The more urban of the two authorities, they said, would primarily face issues such as health inequality, low educational attainment, access to employment, crime and disorder, and synergy with the wider city region based in Newcastle, whereas the dominant issues for the more rural authority would be access to services, market town sustainability, tourism and economic diversification, affordable housing, transport and the condition of the highways. There were different strings of issues, from which I have merely cited some examples.
That was a revealing analysis. We are talking about two different areas that face rather different problems. They obviously have some problems in common with other parts of the country, but there are some striking differences. The financial calculations, which are notoriously unreliable in any local government reorganisation proposal, did not show huge differences between what could be achieved by having two authorities and by having one.
I turn to the point that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley so vividly portrayed. When the county leaders put their single-council plan to the council, they realised in the end that they could not win—that they simply did not have the votes—although extremely strong letters had been sent to Labour councillors, saying that if they did not toe the line they would be expelled, and would not be allowed to stand in the district council elections later this year. That was a pretty serious threat, which they nevertheless continued to withstand. I should explain that in the meantime, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) had written to Conservatives in the area, saying that they should not support any change at all, although quite a number of them were by that time firmly committed to the two-council option.
The council's Labour leadership realised that they were not going to get their proposal through, so at the very last minute a revised motion—it was not on the agenda paper; councillors did not have it beforehand—was produced, containing the following wonderful words:
"Council...Endorse the submission of a single unitary proposal in the context of county support for the submission of both a single unitary by the County Council and two unitary councils by the district councils."
In other words, they could take their pick. As the county leader said at the meeting, the Government are going to decide which one to have, anyway. So the council leadership could not get their own proposal through their own council.
The bid was very complex, involving adding 22 neighbourhood structures. One factor that influenced a lot of people was the county's failure to deliver for rural areas. Opinion probably swung even more behind the two-authority solution when it was realised that the county had an institutional inability to cope with some of the rural problems. The Minister for Schools has taken a close interest in a very vivid example of such problems, and he has recognised that further work needs to be done. In trying to deal with school transport issues, the county ended up imposing a very high charge for school transport for over-16s. It decided to charge £360 per child aged over 16 for transport to school in the rural areas of the county. That does not happen in Cumbria. The council also withdrew train passes from students from Berwick who were travelling to college in Newcastle and told them to go on the bus, which took one and three quarter hours. The usage of the bus has fallen to five people, because it is such an impossible way to travel to college. That is one example of how the decision-making structure of the county did not enable the rural aspects to be considered.
Another example is the executive, which does not have a single member from either the Alnwick district or the Berwick borough, and has only one from Tynedale. That reflects the partisan differences between the different areas, but those differences would be writ large in a single unitary authority. Whichever part of the authority managed to gain control of the executive, the rest would feel very left out. The two-council alternative is more attractive and more popular.
Add your comment
Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we were to have a referendum, support for the two unitary authorities, in his area and mine, would be overwhelming?
Add your comment
A J Beith
Taken from Hansard
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman is right to mention the decision that the Labour group took last week. In fact, it was a very narrow decision; the leadership were about to lose the vote, until they reached a compromise. Labour councillors were not going to vote for it, which shows how far apart the leadership were from their own council.
Friday, January 19, 2007
News Post Leader 18 January 2007, A Bad day for NNC
Photo of Paul Kelly the writer of the leaked e-mail, Chief Whip
Council in last minute change to submission
COUNTY leaders averted an embarrassing defeat in a vote on local government reorganisation by drawing up a last minute compromise to support both of the two proposals.
Councillors at Northumberland County Council voted to pass a motion supporting the submission of the county plan to create a single unitary authority, and a plan from the districts for a rural urban split.
Last week the county council was criticised after a leaked e-mail revealed councillors would face sanctions if they did not vote to support the plans for a single ‘super council’.
But when the leadership was faced with a real possibility of losing the vote, council leader Bill Brooks submitted a last minute motion to support both plans during a meeting of the full council on Monday.
It was passed in a 43 to 18 vote.
Coun Leslie Rickerby, leader of the Lib Dem group, said it was no secret that the majority of councillors would have voted against the county’s plans.
And Coun Alex Kerr, leader of the Conservative and Independent group, said he thought the deal to support both was a “sop”.
But Coun Dave Stephens, leader of Blyth Valley Council, said he thought the motion was the best way forward.
“Everyone knows I am a supporter of creating two distinct unitary authorities,” he said.
“But I have no fear in seeing both options go to the government.
“We should support the submissions from all councils ... and take the options to the people of Northumberland
Council in last minute change to submission
COUNTY leaders averted an embarrassing defeat in a vote on local government reorganisation by drawing up a last minute compromise to support both of the two proposals.
Councillors at Northumberland County Council voted to pass a motion supporting the submission of the county plan to create a single unitary authority, and a plan from the districts for a rural urban split.
Last week the county council was criticised after a leaked e-mail revealed councillors would face sanctions if they did not vote to support the plans for a single ‘super council’.
But when the leadership was faced with a real possibility of losing the vote, council leader Bill Brooks submitted a last minute motion to support both plans during a meeting of the full council on Monday.
It was passed in a 43 to 18 vote.
Coun Leslie Rickerby, leader of the Lib Dem group, said it was no secret that the majority of councillors would have voted against the county’s plans.
And Coun Alex Kerr, leader of the Conservative and Independent group, said he thought the deal to support both was a “sop”.
But Coun Dave Stephens, leader of Blyth Valley Council, said he thought the motion was the best way forward.
“Everyone knows I am a supporter of creating two distinct unitary authorities,” he said.
“But I have no fear in seeing both options go to the government.
“We should support the submissions from all councils ... and take the options to the people of Northumberland
Hexham Courant Friday January 19 2007
County compromises in face of back bench rebellion
Published on 19/01/2007
By WILL GREEN
CHAOS reigned at County Hall on Monday, as county councillors clashed over the future of local government.
In a marathon three-hour session, councillors from across the political spectrum slugged it out to decide whether Northumberland County Council would submit its plans to create a single unitary authority for the whole county.
This would signal its own abolition and that of Northumberland’s six district councils.
Faced by a potential rebellion from within its own ranks, the ruling Labour executive finally agreed to a compromise motion rather than risk putting its wafer-thin majority to the test, even with a whip in force.
It did submit its plans for a single council, but also agreed to support the submission of an alternative proposal from the districts for two unitary councils – one for the four rural districts of Tynedale, Castle Morpeth, Alnwick and Berwick, and the other from the two urban authorities of Wansbeck and Blyth Valley.
The move was seen as a sop to powerful Labour members in the urban areas, who are known to favour the two-way split.
Tory opposition leader Coun. Alex Kerr, from Bingfield, told the council’s leaders: “You may accuse me of being cynical in saying that the move to support two authorities is just another sop to support your already damaged administration.
“Leadership doesn’t mean the arrogance of assuming you know best; it should mean talking to your partners, and you have failed in this.”
And Tory councillor Bill Purdue, from Allendale, said: “This is farcical, we are being asked to agree two diametrically opposed ideas in this new recommendation!”
Lib Dem group leader Coun. Lesley Rickerby, from Blyth, said: “It is no secret that the majority of Lib Dems would have voted against a single unitary recommendation.
“We mustn't forget the importance of the decision we make here today.
“Residents’ views should be heard through a referendum.”
Other members blasted the executive’s alleged strong arming of rebel Labour councillors to vote for the single council recommendation by the use of the party whip.
Tory councillor Glen Sanderson, from Morpeth, said: “The Labour party are good at one thing – bullying!
“Look at them here today, forced to come in and sign this compromise, all designed to allow those people who might otherwise have been absent due to ‘illness’ to come in!”
But one such councillor, Labour’s Dave Stephens from Blyth, said there had been no bullying used to get him to vote despite his well known support for the rural/urban option.
“I am a vociferous supporter of the two unitary argument. However, I support the motion today because I’m not afraid of both submissions going forward.”
The recommendation – which was carried by a vote of 43 for, 18 against and two abstentions – said councillors “endorse the submission of a single unitary proposal in the context of county support for the submission of both a single unitary by the county council and two unitary councils by the district councils”.
The original motion, simply recommended councillors “endorse the case for a single unitary council”.
However, following the meeting, leader of the county council Labour’s Bill Brooks, seemed pleased with the outcome, saying: “I am delighted that county councillors have voted to do what is best for the people of Northumberland.
“The final decision on any reorganisation will be made by the Government and Monday’s decision means that our proposals can go to the minister for consideration, along with any proposals the district councils put forward.”
But the fact that the Government, rather than local councillors, will shape the future of the county has not been universally well received.
Tory councillor Raymond Thompson, from Stocksfield, said: “The council has abrogated its responsibility for our own area to central Government.
“While they are trying to make us take our own decisions we are saying to them that we can’t – it doesn’t bode well for the future!”
View this story and the latest newspaper in full digital reproduction, just like the printed copy at www.hexhamcourant.co.uk/digitalcopy
Published on 19/01/2007
By WILL GREEN
CHAOS reigned at County Hall on Monday, as county councillors clashed over the future of local government.
In a marathon three-hour session, councillors from across the political spectrum slugged it out to decide whether Northumberland County Council would submit its plans to create a single unitary authority for the whole county.
This would signal its own abolition and that of Northumberland’s six district councils.
Faced by a potential rebellion from within its own ranks, the ruling Labour executive finally agreed to a compromise motion rather than risk putting its wafer-thin majority to the test, even with a whip in force.
It did submit its plans for a single council, but also agreed to support the submission of an alternative proposal from the districts for two unitary councils – one for the four rural districts of Tynedale, Castle Morpeth, Alnwick and Berwick, and the other from the two urban authorities of Wansbeck and Blyth Valley.
The move was seen as a sop to powerful Labour members in the urban areas, who are known to favour the two-way split.
Tory opposition leader Coun. Alex Kerr, from Bingfield, told the council’s leaders: “You may accuse me of being cynical in saying that the move to support two authorities is just another sop to support your already damaged administration.
“Leadership doesn’t mean the arrogance of assuming you know best; it should mean talking to your partners, and you have failed in this.”
And Tory councillor Bill Purdue, from Allendale, said: “This is farcical, we are being asked to agree two diametrically opposed ideas in this new recommendation!”
Lib Dem group leader Coun. Lesley Rickerby, from Blyth, said: “It is no secret that the majority of Lib Dems would have voted against a single unitary recommendation.
“We mustn't forget the importance of the decision we make here today.
“Residents’ views should be heard through a referendum.”
Other members blasted the executive’s alleged strong arming of rebel Labour councillors to vote for the single council recommendation by the use of the party whip.
Tory councillor Glen Sanderson, from Morpeth, said: “The Labour party are good at one thing – bullying!
“Look at them here today, forced to come in and sign this compromise, all designed to allow those people who might otherwise have been absent due to ‘illness’ to come in!”
But one such councillor, Labour’s Dave Stephens from Blyth, said there had been no bullying used to get him to vote despite his well known support for the rural/urban option.
“I am a vociferous supporter of the two unitary argument. However, I support the motion today because I’m not afraid of both submissions going forward.”
The recommendation – which was carried by a vote of 43 for, 18 against and two abstentions – said councillors “endorse the submission of a single unitary proposal in the context of county support for the submission of both a single unitary by the county council and two unitary councils by the district councils”.
The original motion, simply recommended councillors “endorse the case for a single unitary council”.
However, following the meeting, leader of the county council Labour’s Bill Brooks, seemed pleased with the outcome, saying: “I am delighted that county councillors have voted to do what is best for the people of Northumberland.
“The final decision on any reorganisation will be made by the Government and Monday’s decision means that our proposals can go to the minister for consideration, along with any proposals the district councils put forward.”
But the fact that the Government, rather than local councillors, will shape the future of the county has not been universally well received.
Tory councillor Raymond Thompson, from Stocksfield, said: “The council has abrogated its responsibility for our own area to central Government.
“While they are trying to make us take our own decisions we are saying to them that we can’t – it doesn’t bode well for the future!”
View this story and the latest newspaper in full digital reproduction, just like the printed copy at www.hexhamcourant.co.uk/digitalcopy
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The big Vote Day
The sound of the crumpled order papers being swept up from the chamber of despair at County Hall was heartbreaking.
It all started with a field of promises – promises that the Government told them ‘they had it in the bag’, that’s if they ignored what the public wanted of course.
It continued with promises of support from politicians, that’s if they ignored what the MP’s wanted.
The final promise was that the County council itself would support the notion of a massive single unitary authority.
And of course it didn’t.
Monday morning was just a continuation of the previous few days that were solid with the machinations of the leadership trying to muster votes.
At the Labour Group meeting, realisation dawned on Bill and Peter when Paul ‘shotgun’ Kelly told them they did not have the support of the County Council for a single authority, no matter how he had tried to coerce and blackmail people into what the leader wanted them to do.
After that came a flurry of compromise motions that resulted in Billy ‘the bullet’ actually backing the bid for the two unitary councils option for Northumberland – ALTHOUGH HE DIDN’T REALISE THAT until it was too late.
We now have a situation where the option of two unitaries has the backing ALL seven councils in Northumberland, ALL the MPs, all the people and even their budgies!
The single option has the personal backing of Billy – we hear that Peter Hillman might jump ship soon.
We now look forward to persuading the DCLG that two is good for Northumberland.
By the way, we hear that Cllr Luke has been given the vacant seat on the executive – well done Dorothy.
BUT who gets the Assistants role on the portfolio.
With all the loyalists given ‘jobs for the boys’ that only leaves those ‘others’.
Result – no assistant for Dorothy!
The pettiness is creeping back in already!
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
An 11th-hour amendment tabled by council leader Bill Brooks called for both options to go foreward
An 11th-hour amendment tabled by council leader Bill Brooks called for both options to be submitted for Government scrutiny, with ministers asked to decide which one they feel is best for the future of Northumberland
By Dave Black, The Journal
Labour leaders of Northumberland County Council were last night accused of "passing the buck" after averting a potential defeat in a key vote on the controversial issue of local government reform.
Opposition councillors attacked them for cobbling together a last-minute compromise deal in order to head off a possible rebellion by their own members over backing for a single "super council" to run the county.
An extraordinary meeting of the county council agreed to submit two rival bids to the Government - one for a single unitary council and the other for two unitaries along urban and rural lines as recommended by the six district councils.
It means the county council is not expressing a preference for either option - a move seen by opposition councillors as a major climbdown from the Labour leadership's original recommendation to call for a single unitary.
An 11th-hour amendment tabled by council leader Bill Brooks called for both options to be submitted for Government scrutiny, with ministers asked to decide which one they feel is best for the future of Northumberland.
The compromise was aimed at winning the support of a number of Labour county councillors who are known to be supporters of two new unitary councils, one for Blyth Valley and Wansbeck and the other for the four rural districts.
The Journal revealed last week how Labour councillors were threatened with suspension from the ruling group if they failed to support the leadership's call for a single unitary.
Last night opposition councillors condemned the compromise move as "a sop to a damaged administration" and claimed it smacked of desperation.
The Labour leadership's original recommendation to yesterday's meeting was for the county council to "endorse the case for a single unitary council".
Independent councillor Gordon Castle said: "The amendment is an attempt to have our cake and eat it when what we need is clarity. We are being asked to give our clear endorsement to one option or the other. The only option in the best interest of Northumberland is the two unitary one and we should say so unequivocally."
Fellow Independent Jeff Watson said: "We are trying to pass the buck here by putting forward two options. We are saying we are not sure what we are doing by passing it to the Government."
Northumberland's six district councils are meeting this week to finalise agreement on submitting their joint bid for two unitary councils to the Government. Coun Brooks said he remains convinced that a single unitary council is best for Northumberland under local government reform, but the Government needed to see all of the alternative proposals.
"I have no fear of both submissions going forward to central Government. The White Paper doesn't make any provision for a referendum on this, but it does say the Government will consult stakeholders. I want to take as much heat out of the situation as possible. If we are going to make radical change in Northumberland it has to be the right radical change."
Yesterday's meeting rejected an amendment by the Liberal Democrat group that both rival submissions should go forward, with the county council expressing a "preference" for two unitary councils. It also rejected a notice of motion by Tory and Independent group leader Alex Kerr for the council not to support a bid for a single super council.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
This Motion was carried on Saturday 13 January 2007 at the Blyth CLP of GMC of Labour Party
Photo of Bill Brooks 
Emergency Motion to Blyth Valley CLP Saturday 13 January 2007
Motion submitted by Unison 04199 Branch
Blyth Valley CLP wholeheartedly supports the Labour Party MP’s, Ronnie Campbell and Denis Murphy’s stand to form two unitary authorities (Urban & Rural) within the bounds of Northumberland County.
Blyth Valley CLP also agrees to support in it’s entirity, thebid by Blyth Valley Borough Council and the other five District Councils with in Northumberland to seek unitary status via the two unitary model. This motion also empowers members of the CLP to openly voice the opinions and support the views of the electorate of Northumberland who democratically enabled the MP’ s to shape their viewpoint when asked through the ballot box in November 2004
J Grant Davey Secretary and APF Officer 04199 Branch
Ivan Hayes, a County Councillor from Cramlington was the only person at the meeting who did not support the motion, he is also a cabinet member of Northumberland County Council.
Bill Brooks, Leader of the County Council who is a member of the GMC,was not present at the meeting according to our sources.
Emergency Motion to Blyth Valley CLP Saturday 13 January 2007
Motion submitted by Unison 04199 Branch
Blyth Valley CLP wholeheartedly supports the Labour Party MP’s, Ronnie Campbell and Denis Murphy’s stand to form two unitary authorities (Urban & Rural) within the bounds of Northumberland County.
Blyth Valley CLP also agrees to support in it’s entirity, thebid by Blyth Valley Borough Council and the other five District Councils with in Northumberland to seek unitary status via the two unitary model. This motion also empowers members of the CLP to openly voice the opinions and support the views of the electorate of Northumberland who democratically enabled the MP’ s to shape their viewpoint when asked through the ballot box in November 2004
J Grant Davey Secretary and APF Officer 04199 Branch
Ivan Hayes, a County Councillor from Cramlington was the only person at the meeting who did not support the motion, he is also a cabinet member of Northumberland County Council.
Bill Brooks, Leader of the County Council who is a member of the GMC,was not present at the meeting according to our sources.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Labour Cracks the Whip, Paul Kelly Chief Whip,
Jan 12 2007
By Dave Black, The Journal
The Labour leadership of Northumberland County Council is in danger of losing a vote to endorse its plan to create a single unitary authority to run the county.
The ruling Labour group is proposing the creation of one `super council' after the Government called for a shake-up of the way the county is run.
Labour members have been threatened with suspension if they fail to support the bid in a vote at next week's crunch county council meeting.
But as the Tories and Lib Dems join forces to oppose the single council plan, Labour is looking at the real possibility of its proposals not being ratified by the council, on which it has a majority of two.
This would leave the bid in tatters, in the face of a rival plan from the six district councils who are backing the creation of two unitary councils split on rural and urban grounds.
In the Government's guidelines, councils were also told bids must carry "a broad cross section of support" to be successful.
Members of the ruling Labour group have been warned they face having the party whip withdrawn if they fail to toe the line at Monday's extraordinary meeting of the county council.
They have also been warned that any such disciplinary action could potentially bar them from standing as Labour candidates at the district council elections in May.
And the party's county councillors are being told they must support the single unitary option, even if they have voted in favour of two unitaries in their dual role as district councillors. The tough warning has been sounded in a letter to the 34 Labour councillors from group chief whip, Coun Paul Kelly, in a bid to head off any potential revolt which could scupper his party's bid for a single council for Northumberland.
It comes as opposition councillors have united in an attempt to inflict an embarrassing defeat on Labour at the meeting in County Hall, Morpeth.
A motion to be debated at the meeting - signed by Tory and Independent group leader Coun Alex Kerr and Lib Dem leader Coun Lesley Rickerby - urges the county council not to support a bid for a single unitary authority in Northumberland.
Coun Kelly's letter, which says the consequences of defeat in Monday's vote would be dire, makes it clear Labour councillors could face sanctions if they fail to support the single unitary option.
Yesterday one Labour district councillor, who asked not to be named, said: "Everyone I have spoken to is disgusted by the threats that are being made in this letter.
"The term blackmail has been used and no one can believe that councillors are being told they can vote one way at district level and a completely different way at the county."
Blyth Valley MP Ronnie Campbell, who along with Northumberland's three other MPs supports two unitaries, said: "This sounds like heavy-handed stuff, but it is up to Labour county councillors to decide which way they vote."
Labour county councillor and Blyth Valley Borough Council leader Dave Stephens, who has publicly backed the two unitary option, said: "I don't want to make any comment on internal Labour Party matters, but I am sure all county councillors will be voting on Monday in the way they see fit."
Coun Kerr said: "I have submitted my motion to ensure that there is a vote on the issue on Monday.
"We are not in favour of a single unitary and Labour clearly realises the opposition groups are taking a strong line on this. From our point of view, there hasn't appeared to be any need to put a whip on."
Coun Rickerby said: "Most of our group are of a mind to oppose a single unitary."
Last night Labour county council leader, Coun Bill Brooks, said: "The Conservative group has a motion to council in direct opposition to the current council policy, so it is required that Labour councillors are subject to the party whip.
"The national office advocates that this is in line with Labour Party rules and members have been made aware of the application of that rule, in particular in respect of dual role councillors. Where district councillors are also county councillors, they are expected to act appropriately at county council meetings."
By Dave Black, The Journal
The Labour leadership of Northumberland County Council is in danger of losing a vote to endorse its plan to create a single unitary authority to run the county.
The ruling Labour group is proposing the creation of one `super council' after the Government called for a shake-up of the way the county is run.
Labour members have been threatened with suspension if they fail to support the bid in a vote at next week's crunch county council meeting.
But as the Tories and Lib Dems join forces to oppose the single council plan, Labour is looking at the real possibility of its proposals not being ratified by the council, on which it has a majority of two.
This would leave the bid in tatters, in the face of a rival plan from the six district councils who are backing the creation of two unitary councils split on rural and urban grounds.
In the Government's guidelines, councils were also told bids must carry "a broad cross section of support" to be successful.
Members of the ruling Labour group have been warned they face having the party whip withdrawn if they fail to toe the line at Monday's extraordinary meeting of the county council.
They have also been warned that any such disciplinary action could potentially bar them from standing as Labour candidates at the district council elections in May.
And the party's county councillors are being told they must support the single unitary option, even if they have voted in favour of two unitaries in their dual role as district councillors. The tough warning has been sounded in a letter to the 34 Labour councillors from group chief whip, Coun Paul Kelly, in a bid to head off any potential revolt which could scupper his party's bid for a single council for Northumberland.
It comes as opposition councillors have united in an attempt to inflict an embarrassing defeat on Labour at the meeting in County Hall, Morpeth.
A motion to be debated at the meeting - signed by Tory and Independent group leader Coun Alex Kerr and Lib Dem leader Coun Lesley Rickerby - urges the county council not to support a bid for a single unitary authority in Northumberland.
Coun Kelly's letter, which says the consequences of defeat in Monday's vote would be dire, makes it clear Labour councillors could face sanctions if they fail to support the single unitary option.
Yesterday one Labour district councillor, who asked not to be named, said: "Everyone I have spoken to is disgusted by the threats that are being made in this letter.
"The term blackmail has been used and no one can believe that councillors are being told they can vote one way at district level and a completely different way at the county."
Blyth Valley MP Ronnie Campbell, who along with Northumberland's three other MPs supports two unitaries, said: "This sounds like heavy-handed stuff, but it is up to Labour county councillors to decide which way they vote."
Labour county councillor and Blyth Valley Borough Council leader Dave Stephens, who has publicly backed the two unitary option, said: "I don't want to make any comment on internal Labour Party matters, but I am sure all county councillors will be voting on Monday in the way they see fit."
Coun Kerr said: "I have submitted my motion to ensure that there is a vote on the issue on Monday.
"We are not in favour of a single unitary and Labour clearly realises the opposition groups are taking a strong line on this. From our point of view, there hasn't appeared to be any need to put a whip on."
Coun Rickerby said: "Most of our group are of a mind to oppose a single unitary."
Last night Labour county council leader, Coun Bill Brooks, said: "The Conservative group has a motion to council in direct opposition to the current council policy, so it is required that Labour councillors are subject to the party whip.
"The national office advocates that this is in line with Labour Party rules and members have been made aware of the application of that rule, in particular in respect of dual role councillors. Where district councillors are also county councillors, they are expected to act appropriately at county council meetings."
Leadership at Northumberland County Council
It’s coming to the end of a long and winding road for the leadership at Northumberland County Council.
The road over the last few years have been littered with cock-ups, poor management of their best resource – Labour councillors, and oh yes simple bad luck, but we make our own luck to large extent don’t we.
This blog has never attacked or criticised the hard working councillors as we have always considered them to be the lions led by the proverbial donkeys – although it has to be said the lions elected the donkeys into the position they now find themselves.
We have found that the average councillor at NCC has been kept in the dark an awful lot over the true meaning of a single unitary county.
Let’s forget for a moment all the discussion over the practicalities of changing to two unitaries, even your own officers are saying they are more than viable.
Let’s forget the leadership for a while.
A bid for a single council is now doomed – it does not have broad support.
A bid for two unitary councils has the support of the people of Northumberland and all four MPs – it’s a rarity to get a consensus from two MPs let alone four from all different parties.
Even your reluctant ‘support’ from the likes of the NECC and the Police are shrouded in so many caveats as to be useless, we even here that two of the ‘supporters’ are withdrawing their names
I believe the Director of the NECC from Durham said it all when he said he is ‘minded to support Mark Henderson’s plans.’
Where does that lead you all?
The district councillors amongst you have had several opportunities to affect their bid and support it, and they have supported it in droves. It has messages of support from all quarters coming in daily.
The only common ground, if any, is that your leader cannot work with other councils – he has said so to the papers.
Two tier government does not work in Northumberland. The national Government says it is going.
The leaders at County Hall are still at this late stage trying to push their bid through to stay exactly the same – a continuing authority.
He has used the County to promulgate his own personal views whilst denying you the rights to a full consultation.
Where have we heard that before, how many times have the public been complaining of lack of consultation – now it hits home does it not.
When did the County party discuss this or even meet???
The single bid will go nowhere, if it did, as your own councillors have said, in the papers, it will be a hung council.
With the Tories and Liberals in charge that would leave a Labour wasteland from the River Tyne to Scotland – is that the legacy you want to leave?
THERE IS ANOTHER OPTION – YOU ALL HAVE A CHOICE
Whilst everyone recognises for some it would mean a loss of substantial allowances, this can be mitigated by working with the party in South East Northumberland.
By withdrawing support for the single unitary YOU can ensure a smooth transition and not the fight that your officers are predicting with the county trying to battle their way through a High Court case.
So far you have been denied a chance to debate, even at this time Cllrs Brooks and Hillman have tried to put this through without a vote – the Liberals and Tories have stopped them dead in their tracks, that’s even after the dynamic duo tried to negotiate with the other parties – you weren’t told about that were you?
There will be no massive support at County Hall on Monday that is another reason for the single option not going anywhere.
AND NOW we come to a certain whips letter, telling you that you cannot have a conscience, dire consequences, you cannot stand for district!!!!
Do you really want to part of a council that rules by fear, where hypocrites are preferred to councillors with integrity?
The electorate will never accept people who vote both ways at once, neither will the press.
After all the furore you have a choice – support the single option and step into oblivion, or vote with your head and heart.
The choice is yours.
The road over the last few years have been littered with cock-ups, poor management of their best resource – Labour councillors, and oh yes simple bad luck, but we make our own luck to large extent don’t we.
This blog has never attacked or criticised the hard working councillors as we have always considered them to be the lions led by the proverbial donkeys – although it has to be said the lions elected the donkeys into the position they now find themselves.
We have found that the average councillor at NCC has been kept in the dark an awful lot over the true meaning of a single unitary county.
Let’s forget for a moment all the discussion over the practicalities of changing to two unitaries, even your own officers are saying they are more than viable.
Let’s forget the leadership for a while.
A bid for a single council is now doomed – it does not have broad support.
A bid for two unitary councils has the support of the people of Northumberland and all four MPs – it’s a rarity to get a consensus from two MPs let alone four from all different parties.
Even your reluctant ‘support’ from the likes of the NECC and the Police are shrouded in so many caveats as to be useless, we even here that two of the ‘supporters’ are withdrawing their names
I believe the Director of the NECC from Durham said it all when he said he is ‘minded to support Mark Henderson’s plans.’
Where does that lead you all?
The district councillors amongst you have had several opportunities to affect their bid and support it, and they have supported it in droves. It has messages of support from all quarters coming in daily.
The only common ground, if any, is that your leader cannot work with other councils – he has said so to the papers.
Two tier government does not work in Northumberland. The national Government says it is going.
The leaders at County Hall are still at this late stage trying to push their bid through to stay exactly the same – a continuing authority.
He has used the County to promulgate his own personal views whilst denying you the rights to a full consultation.
Where have we heard that before, how many times have the public been complaining of lack of consultation – now it hits home does it not.
When did the County party discuss this or even meet???
The single bid will go nowhere, if it did, as your own councillors have said, in the papers, it will be a hung council.
With the Tories and Liberals in charge that would leave a Labour wasteland from the River Tyne to Scotland – is that the legacy you want to leave?
THERE IS ANOTHER OPTION – YOU ALL HAVE A CHOICE
Whilst everyone recognises for some it would mean a loss of substantial allowances, this can be mitigated by working with the party in South East Northumberland.
By withdrawing support for the single unitary YOU can ensure a smooth transition and not the fight that your officers are predicting with the county trying to battle their way through a High Court case.
So far you have been denied a chance to debate, even at this time Cllrs Brooks and Hillman have tried to put this through without a vote – the Liberals and Tories have stopped them dead in their tracks, that’s even after the dynamic duo tried to negotiate with the other parties – you weren’t told about that were you?
There will be no massive support at County Hall on Monday that is another reason for the single option not going anywhere.
AND NOW we come to a certain whips letter, telling you that you cannot have a conscience, dire consequences, you cannot stand for district!!!!
Do you really want to part of a council that rules by fear, where hypocrites are preferred to councillors with integrity?
The electorate will never accept people who vote both ways at once, neither will the press.
After all the furore you have a choice – support the single option and step into oblivion, or vote with your head and heart.
The choice is yours.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
We have it folks a copy of the E-Mail sent to all Labour Councillors by the Paul Kelly Chief Whip
Photo of the Chief Whip
Paul Kelly
Please see content of letter below , the wording of which is agreed by a National Labour Party official. This will be followed up by a hardcopy sent direct to your home.
NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL
LABOUR GROUP
To all Labour Group members Tuesday January 9th.
Dear colleagueMay I wish you a happy and healthy 2007..At the Labour Group meeting Officers Wednesday January 3’, it was resolved that I, as Chief Whip, should write to every member of the group in order to make it absolutely clear his/her obligation to attend and supportthe Labour administration stance on Unitary Local Government at the Extraordinary County Councilmeeting on January 15th•
The position of dual role councillors in particular has been a cause for debate. Can a district councillor votefor two unitary councils for Northumberland in the district chamber and appear to contradict him/herself byvoting for one in the county council chamber?
In order to clarify the situation on loyalty to different stances in labour groups, we sought advice fromRegional and National Labour Party officers. Ann Reeder and Fiona Twycross addressed a meeting ofCounty Council and District Council group officers in the Chairman’s dining room on December 4th. Theywere categorical in their ruling that Labour group members must support the stance adopted by their groupin both councils or be in breach of the Labour Group rules and subject to the sanctions of the Group Whip.
The recent death of Alan Cutter has consequences for our ability to carry the day in a vote in the council chamber. Opposition Leaders have intimated that they will be seizing this opportunity to exploit ourweakened position by putting forward a notice of motion in direct opposition to that of the Labour Group & probably operating a three line whip on their members in the hope of carrying a majority on the 15thJanuary.
The consequences would be dire.
I cannot stress enough the importance of attendance at this meeting. Exemption on conscience grounds will not be accepted.
I have to make it clear that this is a very serious matter and if I feel that sanctions are justified, the groupwhip may be withdrawn. Members who are in breach would need to be called for interview by the RegionalBoard to explain their position, particularly if they intend to stand for re election to the district as he/shecannot be eligible if subject to withdrawal of the whip.
Yours fraternallyPaul KellyChief Whip
Chairman’s SecretaryChief Executive’s DirectorateNorthumberland County Council
Paul Kelly
Please see content of letter below , the wording of which is agreed by a National Labour Party official. This will be followed up by a hardcopy sent direct to your home.
NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL
LABOUR GROUP
To all Labour Group members Tuesday January 9th.
Dear colleagueMay I wish you a happy and healthy 2007..At the Labour Group meeting Officers Wednesday January 3’, it was resolved that I, as Chief Whip, should write to every member of the group in order to make it absolutely clear his/her obligation to attend and supportthe Labour administration stance on Unitary Local Government at the Extraordinary County Councilmeeting on January 15th•
The position of dual role councillors in particular has been a cause for debate. Can a district councillor votefor two unitary councils for Northumberland in the district chamber and appear to contradict him/herself byvoting for one in the county council chamber?
In order to clarify the situation on loyalty to different stances in labour groups, we sought advice fromRegional and National Labour Party officers. Ann Reeder and Fiona Twycross addressed a meeting ofCounty Council and District Council group officers in the Chairman’s dining room on December 4th. Theywere categorical in their ruling that Labour group members must support the stance adopted by their groupin both councils or be in breach of the Labour Group rules and subject to the sanctions of the Group Whip.
The recent death of Alan Cutter has consequences for our ability to carry the day in a vote in the council chamber. Opposition Leaders have intimated that they will be seizing this opportunity to exploit ourweakened position by putting forward a notice of motion in direct opposition to that of the Labour Group & probably operating a three line whip on their members in the hope of carrying a majority on the 15thJanuary.
The consequences would be dire.
I cannot stress enough the importance of attendance at this meeting. Exemption on conscience grounds will not be accepted.
I have to make it clear that this is a very serious matter and if I feel that sanctions are justified, the groupwhip may be withdrawn. Members who are in breach would need to be called for interview by the RegionalBoard to explain their position, particularly if they intend to stand for re election to the district as he/shecannot be eligible if subject to withdrawal of the whip.
Yours fraternallyPaul KellyChief Whip
Chairman’s SecretaryChief Executive’s DirectorateNorthumberland County Council
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
The Leadership Team at Northumberland County Council
The latest sniping from the leader of the County Council has really gone beyond the pale.
After he publicly humiliated his council by pleading with a reporter for no more attacks on his plans for a single council he now blatantly lies about the two unitary option – it’s no wonder the public are turned off by him and his deputy.
Where are we now.
Well, in 2004, amongst those heady days of referenda, the two options were accepted after a year long investigation by the Boundary Committee.
BOTH options were stated to be viable and BOTH saved money – the only discussions were how much but as the Commission said of the Counties figures ‘savings such as these are rarely, if ever achieved’.
The Boundary Committee then passed it through the Commission and to the Government – all three agreed both options were viable.
Viable as opposed to acceptable. At the press conference in the Copthorne the Chair of the committee again expressed her concern over the lack of transparency and democracy in the single council option.
The chair provided us with the results of a 2004 MORI poll that clearly stated the public wanted the two unitary options.
This exercise was repeated again in the referendum and again the public by 15,000 majorities decided to go with the two unitary options.
The latest ICM poll again restates that position by 67% wanting the two unitaries compared with only a quarter for the single.
The counties attempt to muddy the waters with an ambiguous poll designed to show support backfired on them. The poll showed that the public was sick and tired of two tiered government and wanted to have only one.
Now the six districts have consulted widely and their members have had several opportunities to discuss their submission and indeed alter it!
The County Councillors have still not had the chance to debate it – the situation is intolerable.
After getting the wind up, the leadership have pinned their hopes on a brand new council that works on the same borders, from the same place, with the same councillors and the same leadership. You couldn’t make it up could you?
The districts are unanimous in their support for the two unitary options – across the political divide with all four MPs support.
After he publicly humiliated his council by pleading with a reporter for no more attacks on his plans for a single council he now blatantly lies about the two unitary option – it’s no wonder the public are turned off by him and his deputy.
Where are we now.
Well, in 2004, amongst those heady days of referenda, the two options were accepted after a year long investigation by the Boundary Committee.
BOTH options were stated to be viable and BOTH saved money – the only discussions were how much but as the Commission said of the Counties figures ‘savings such as these are rarely, if ever achieved’.
The Boundary Committee then passed it through the Commission and to the Government – all three agreed both options were viable.
Viable as opposed to acceptable. At the press conference in the Copthorne the Chair of the committee again expressed her concern over the lack of transparency and democracy in the single council option.
The chair provided us with the results of a 2004 MORI poll that clearly stated the public wanted the two unitary options.
This exercise was repeated again in the referendum and again the public by 15,000 majorities decided to go with the two unitary options.
The latest ICM poll again restates that position by 67% wanting the two unitaries compared with only a quarter for the single.
The counties attempt to muddy the waters with an ambiguous poll designed to show support backfired on them. The poll showed that the public was sick and tired of two tiered government and wanted to have only one.
Now the six districts have consulted widely and their members have had several opportunities to discuss their submission and indeed alter it!
The County Councillors have still not had the chance to debate it – the situation is intolerable.
After getting the wind up, the leadership have pinned their hopes on a brand new council that works on the same borders, from the same place, with the same councillors and the same leadership. You couldn’t make it up could you?
The districts are unanimous in their support for the two unitary options – across the political divide with all four MPs support.
Friday, January 05, 2007
ALNWICK'S Duchess's High School has the worst facilities in Northumberland
Heads say high school has worst facilities in the county
ALNWICK'S Duchess's High School has the worst facilities in Northumberland.
That’s the view of headteachers throughout the county and education bosses at Northumberland County Council as revealed by Duchess’s headteacher Maurice Hall at the school’s annual prize-giving.
Mr Hall, a former Duchess’s pupil, said a new school was long over-due and criticised the lack of progress on building one.
But he said that when it does happen it will be a “once in a lifetime chance to do something extraordinary”.
The county council plans to build a new high school as part of proposals to scrap the current three-tier system. A site off Weaver’s Way has been earmarked for the development.
Mr Hall said: “I see little tangible progress in what is becoming a worrying state of affairs.
“What we have at present in the way of facilities are becoming more and more stretched.
“Over the last 12 months I have had conversations with colleagues from other schools in Northumberland when they have visited here or when I have been shown around their schools.
“I have also talked with officers from the local authority. There is no doubt in all of their minds that this school has the worst facilities in Northumberland.
“Thinking about all of this, it grates to regularly read of the millions of pounds being spent in Cramlington, the millions being prepared to be spent in Ashington and Blyth, and the extra monies that other schools get up and down the country. And we sit here waiting to hear if we might be next, with no real prospect of any new buildings before 2010.”
Mr Hall said he believed there were discussions going on about the new school and reorganisation in the Alnwick area.
But he said: “I am not party to the detail of these discussions, but I don’t think it is rocket science to work out that two of the key players are the county council and Northumberland Estates.
“I really would like these two organisations to genuinely value our young people in the Alnwick area and come up with a way forward as soon as possible.
“The headteachers of the Alnwick Partnership want to help.
04 January 2007
ALNWICK'S Duchess's High School has the worst facilities in Northumberland.
That’s the view of headteachers throughout the county and education bosses at Northumberland County Council as revealed by Duchess’s headteacher Maurice Hall at the school’s annual prize-giving.
Mr Hall, a former Duchess’s pupil, said a new school was long over-due and criticised the lack of progress on building one.
But he said that when it does happen it will be a “once in a lifetime chance to do something extraordinary”.
The county council plans to build a new high school as part of proposals to scrap the current three-tier system. A site off Weaver’s Way has been earmarked for the development.
Mr Hall said: “I see little tangible progress in what is becoming a worrying state of affairs.
“What we have at present in the way of facilities are becoming more and more stretched.
“Over the last 12 months I have had conversations with colleagues from other schools in Northumberland when they have visited here or when I have been shown around their schools.
“I have also talked with officers from the local authority. There is no doubt in all of their minds that this school has the worst facilities in Northumberland.
“Thinking about all of this, it grates to regularly read of the millions of pounds being spent in Cramlington, the millions being prepared to be spent in Ashington and Blyth, and the extra monies that other schools get up and down the country. And we sit here waiting to hear if we might be next, with no real prospect of any new buildings before 2010.”
Mr Hall said he believed there were discussions going on about the new school and reorganisation in the Alnwick area.
But he said: “I am not party to the detail of these discussions, but I don’t think it is rocket science to work out that two of the key players are the county council and Northumberland Estates.
“I really would like these two organisations to genuinely value our young people in the Alnwick area and come up with a way forward as soon as possible.
“The headteachers of the Alnwick Partnership want to help.
04 January 2007
Friday, December 29, 2006
MP in city academy dilemma,Karen Buck withdraws her son
MP in city academy dilemma
Press Association Friday December 29, 2006 5:53 AM
A former Labour minister has withdrawn her son from a so-called flagship city academy in protest at its "appalling" standards, reports said.
Karen Buck said she had been "torn apart" by a "personal dilemma" over withdrawing her 13-year-old son Kosmo from Paddington City Academy in London, but denied hypocrisy.
She is the first Labour MP to take a child out of a city academy and her decision is a blow for Tony Blair's flagship city academies project.
Ms Buck said: "I don't have an ideological objection to city academies. There is not a moral issue here. I am not asking for special treatment. My personal dilemma is I am trying to fight for the Paddington Academy which has a challenging intake.
"They are the same kids my son went to primary school with. I haven't been able to raise it in Parliament because I am absolutely ripped apart by the suggestion that there is a conflict of interest, which there is not."
She is seeking a place for her son in another non-selective state secondary school.
Ms Buck resigned as aviation minister in February and recently protested about the "appalling" standards of accommodation and teaching facilities at Paddington City Academy.
She is not the first Labour MP to face criticism over the choice of a school.
Others include Harriet Harman for allowing her child to go to a grammar school, Diane Abbott for choosing a private school for her son, and Mr Blair and his wife Cherie for sending their children to the London Oratory, a Roman Catholic state school criticised by left-wingers for the perceived elitism of its selection procedures.
The problems at Paddington City Academy were investigated in a recent BBC Newsnight documentary.
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved
Press Association Friday December 29, 2006 5:53 AM
A former Labour minister has withdrawn her son from a so-called flagship city academy in protest at its "appalling" standards, reports said.
Karen Buck said she had been "torn apart" by a "personal dilemma" over withdrawing her 13-year-old son Kosmo from Paddington City Academy in London, but denied hypocrisy.
She is the first Labour MP to take a child out of a city academy and her decision is a blow for Tony Blair's flagship city academies project.
Ms Buck said: "I don't have an ideological objection to city academies. There is not a moral issue here. I am not asking for special treatment. My personal dilemma is I am trying to fight for the Paddington Academy which has a challenging intake.
"They are the same kids my son went to primary school with. I haven't been able to raise it in Parliament because I am absolutely ripped apart by the suggestion that there is a conflict of interest, which there is not."
She is seeking a place for her son in another non-selective state secondary school.
Ms Buck resigned as aviation minister in February and recently protested about the "appalling" standards of accommodation and teaching facilities at Paddington City Academy.
She is not the first Labour MP to face criticism over the choice of a school.
Others include Harriet Harman for allowing her child to go to a grammar school, Diane Abbott for choosing a private school for her son, and Mr Blair and his wife Cherie for sending their children to the London Oratory, a Roman Catholic state school criticised by left-wingers for the perceived elitism of its selection procedures.
The problems at Paddington City Academy were investigated in a recent BBC Newsnight documentary.
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved
Monday, December 18, 2006
Saga of a Academy for Blyth
The latest in the saga of an Academy for Blyth comes from the local Council in Blyth Valley.
The Journal reports that the full Council rejects the plan for a reorganisation based on an Academy.
There in lies the problem for the small pro-Academy group led by Cllr. Brooks.
His officers have now let the cat out of the bag. The original figures for PLF (son of BSF) did not stack up. It was always intended that the Blyth College would take in 2,200 pupils with the historic drift of pupils from South Beach going to Astley.
Unfortunately they found they needed extra room for the sixth form to go alongside the BCC or better still to go to Tynedale. A neat solution – everyone thought so, until they found themselves short of £4.5 million or thereabouts, suddenly they need an Academy.
An Academy will cost them nothing but you and I and the taxpayer will fund their machinations to the tune of £23million instead of £4million, hardly best value!
Now an Academy would normally be a replacement for a failing school, which BCC is not. The next port of convenience is to be able to put a school in an area of deprivation.
There are such wards in Blyth but we now find that the NCC have drawn the boundary of the catchment area for the Academy so as to completely avoid that area. South Beach is not an area known for its deprivation is it?.
Social engineering on this scale must surely run roughshod over the Dfes guidelines.
Now we find the public against the plans, the MP raising it in Parliament, the unions and the local Blyth Valley Council – all opposing it, but what do we hear oh! The parents of Blyth are fully behind it – I have not spoken to one parent who is behind it.
Of course there must be some, somewhere, but do not expect the NCC to disclose these figures.
Knowing that Ronnie Campbell was to bring the subject up Jim Knights office must have contacted NCC to be assured that there was support for the project – the rest is Hansards History so to speak. One further thing of note - Jim Knight did recognise that 30% 0f the pupils for the new Academy will come from Astley High School - what price now the protestations of the Executive at County Hall.
Bill Brooks specialist subject is avoiding difficult questions, although now he just ignores them, even in his own Group we have witnessed his continual whining on about everyone who criticises him. Perhaps he needs a mirror in his office to find out who’s responsible for that.
How have we got to this stage.
It is the arrogance of the leadership at County Hall, who, finding themselves closing every service known to ‘man’ in Northumberland, they find themselves needing a pile of bricks to stick their flag on for the public votes. It won’t wash with people who are fed up with them.
Lord knows what they will think of their plans to outsource everything with a core staff of 160 being left at County Hall. Just to stay in power they are prepared to sell their collective souls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)