New Mayor of Worcester fending off calls to quit

Worcester News: Councillor Alan Amos, the new Mayor of Worcester Councillor Alan Amos, the new Mayor of Worcester

THE new Mayor of Worcester is already fending off calls to quit - but insists he wants to be "a man of the people".

Councillor Alan Amos, who stunned the council by quitting Labour on Sunday before voting in a Tory administration 48 hours later, told your Worcester News he is "not prepared to get into a slanging match".

The 61-year-old also claimed the public don't want answers over why he switched or any details over his Tory deal - saying they are "sick and tired" of politicians rowing.

Cllr Amos says he is determined to not let the saga overshadow his time as Worcester's first citizen, a role he started yesterday.

"I don't underestimate the frustration the public have with politicians and I'm determined to move on," he said.

"The important thing is that we've got a stable administration and a bright, young enthusiastic mayor and I just want to get on with it now.

"I think the public are saying 'we are fed up of all this, just get on with it', so I'm not prepared to get into a slanging match with anyone.

"I don't think people are interesting in hearing us row, frankly."

He has not yet chosen his charities for the year because his decision to quit Labour came so late.

But he says one will be for the elderly, one a veterans' organisation and the other will benefit Worcester Cathedral.

"It's a real honour to do this and I intend to do my best," he said.

Yesterday he was facing criticism from across the political divide.

Councillor Richard Boorn, who was axed as Labour's cabinet member for finance, said: "I won't be going to his annual civic service on June 22, I'd rather stick pins in my eyes.

"I won't be standing up when he enters the room either. He has denigrated the office of mayor."

Aubrey Tarbuck, who retired as a Conservative councillor last month, said: "I was shocked at what happened - it makes a mockery of the mayor's office.

"He's let down the people he represents, it's a slight on the mayor's role, he shouldn't do it." Councillor Adrian Gregson, the axed former leader, called it "unprincipled" and "disgraceful" while Cllr Roger Berry, who also lost a cabinet seat, said he was "gobsmacked".

"I was absolutely amazed," he said.

Cllr Amos' background is in lecturing - in the 1970s and 80s he was an economics teacher, eventually becoming vice-principal of a college in Hertfordshire.

A Londoner, he became a Conservative councillor on Enfield Borough Council and then a Tory MP between 1987-1992 in Hexham, Northumberland before being de-selected.

More recently he spent a decade solving complaints on behalf of the Local Government Ombudsman and after converting to Labour, was a councillor in Tower Hamlets and now Worcester since 2008.

"I wanted to get away from London because it was becoming so overcrowded and developed," said Cllr Amos.

"I knew Worcester already , I've got family here and it's just beautiful."

Comments (121)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:31am Thu 5 Jun 14

_stu_ says...

He's clearly out of touch with reality - of course people want to know why he did it but he doesn't want to tell because he is ashamed.

Near where I live in Warndon there was a childrens ball game area, built as part of a new estate. It was used all day long by the kids, but the adults living nearby complained about the noise of the kids playing, so councillor Amos arranged for it to be moved. It is now behind a locked gate and I haven't seen any kids use it since - they now play in the street dodging cars.
He's clearly out of touch with reality - of course people want to know why he did it but he doesn't want to tell because he is ashamed. Near where I live in Warndon there was a childrens ball game area, built as part of a new estate. It was used all day long by the kids, but the adults living nearby complained about the noise of the kids playing, so councillor Amos arranged for it to be moved. It is now behind a locked gate and I haven't seen any kids use it since - they now play in the street dodging cars. _stu_
  • Score: 33

10:31am Thu 5 Jun 14

Paul Griffiths says...

I wonder if perhaps the time has come for the mayorlty no longer to be bestowed by councillors on one of their own, but awarded annually by an independent body to a worthy citizen nominated by the public?
I wonder if perhaps the time has come for the mayorlty no longer to be bestowed by councillors on one of their own, but awarded annually by an independent body to a worthy citizen nominated by the public? Paul Griffiths
  • Score: 47

10:53am Thu 5 Jun 14

High Time says...

Paul Griffiths wrote:
I wonder if perhaps the time has come for the mayorlty no longer to be bestowed by councillors on one of their own, but awarded annually by an independent body to a worthy citizen nominated by the public?
But who would nominate the members of this independent body? Let me guess the Councillors.
[quote][p][bold]Paul Griffiths[/bold] wrote: I wonder if perhaps the time has come for the mayorlty no longer to be bestowed by councillors on one of their own, but awarded annually by an independent body to a worthy citizen nominated by the public?[/p][/quote]But who would nominate the members of this independent body? Let me guess the Councillors. High Time
  • Score: 5

11:39am Thu 5 Jun 14

Jabbadad says...

Excellent Idea Paul. Of course it could work by including those who have lived in the City for say at least 5 years and by open elections. Councillors being excluded from voting. But wait, we would be straying towards more open democracy. Can't see this lot in the Worcester politcal scene going for that. The present disgaraceful happenings are but an example of current politicians and politics. No wonder you have less to do with them these days Paul.
Excellent Idea Paul. Of course it could work by including those who have lived in the City for say at least 5 years and by open elections. Councillors being excluded from voting. But wait, we would be straying towards more open democracy. Can't see this lot in the Worcester politcal scene going for that. The present disgaraceful happenings are but an example of current politicians and politics. No wonder you have less to do with them these days Paul. Jabbadad
  • Score: 10

11:44am Thu 5 Jun 14

skychip says...

If Councillor Amos has changed from Labour to Independent I would have thought there should be another election because the constituents voted for Labour.
If Councillor Amos has changed from Labour to Independent I would have thought there should be another election because the constituents voted for Labour. skychip
  • Score: 43

12:06pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Pomygranit says...

Do we deserve a man with no principals and no loyalty to those who elected him to be the Mayor of this city?

Worcester is the Faithful City, it is a shame that this person with no morals and no loyalty has this role.

Not only should he resign but Geraghty should go as well for allowing it to happen.

Have no complaint about the Tories in power, not my choice but its politics. However the way it was done is a disgrace and Amos and Geraghty should step down from their roles.
Do we deserve a man with no principals and no loyalty to those who elected him to be the Mayor of this city? Worcester is the Faithful City, it is a shame that this person with no morals and no loyalty has this role. Not only should he resign but Geraghty should go as well for allowing it to happen. Have no complaint about the Tories in power, not my choice but its politics. However the way it was done is a disgrace and Amos and Geraghty should step down from their roles. Pomygranit
  • Score: 64

12:15pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Deskin says...

I would have complained to The Standards Board for England but unfortunately the Tory’s abolished it!
I would have complained to The Standards Board for England but unfortunately the Tory’s abolished it! Deskin
  • Score: 34

12:34pm Thu 5 Jun 14

denon says...

Look at it this way ....a member of the public gets elected as first citizen...she or he then has a casting vote at council meeeting ...so very soon they become part of the confrontational political classes.Cannot see it working Mr Griffith
Look at it this way ....a member of the public gets elected as first citizen...she or he then has a casting vote at council meeeting ...so very soon they become part of the confrontational political classes.Cannot see it working Mr Griffith denon
  • Score: 4

12:46pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Jabbadad says...

I recall that the councillors in Warwickshire have to take a Hippocratic Oath to repesent the voters first. They closed both eyes on that one at Worcester. Would have meant a mass weeding of the over faithfull councillors to the Party regime more than the voters.
I recall that the councillors in Warwickshire have to take a Hippocratic Oath to repesent the voters first. They closed both eyes on that one at Worcester. Would have meant a mass weeding of the over faithfull councillors to the Party regime more than the voters. Jabbadad
  • Score: 5

12:55pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Butterfly dreamer says...

skychip wrote:
If Councillor Amos has changed from Labour to Independent I would have thought there should be another election because the constituents voted for Labour.
I totally agree there should be electionns when he resigned. He timed it right to upset everyone snd get his own way. He belevies the people of Warndon like him do much they voted for him not the party which for some maybe correct but thats disrespecting the resisents.
[quote][p][bold]skychip[/bold] wrote: If Councillor Amos has changed from Labour to Independent I would have thought there should be another election because the constituents voted for Labour.[/p][/quote]I totally agree there should be electionns when he resigned. He timed it right to upset everyone snd get his own way. He belevies the people of Warndon like him do much they voted for him not the party which for some maybe correct but thats disrespecting the resisents. Butterfly dreamer
  • Score: 20

1:38pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Worcester woman 1964 says...

Amos is out of touch with reality. It is an insult that ha calls himself a man of the people. Prove this by getting yourself elected. Let's see how many people support you then. I do not want this unprincipled man to represent the city that I am proud to live in
Amos is out of touch with reality. It is an insult that ha calls himself a man of the people. Prove this by getting yourself elected. Let's see how many people support you then. I do not want this unprincipled man to represent the city that I am proud to live in Worcester woman 1964
  • Score: 38

1:59pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Paul Griffiths says...

@denon

Part of the reason why the civic office of Mayor has become so politicised is precisely because of the casting vote. Whichever party forms the administration ideally wants to keep that in reserve, just in case. You could just recognise that fact and give the casting vote to the Council Leader. Or you could leave it with the Mayor and have a presumption in favour of the administration, except perhaps in certain special circumstances.
@denon Part of the reason why the civic office of Mayor has become so politicised is precisely because of the casting vote. Whichever party forms the administration ideally wants to keep that in reserve, just in case. You could just recognise that fact and give the casting vote to the Council Leader. Or you could leave it with the Mayor and have a presumption in favour of the administration, except perhaps in certain special circumstances. Paul Griffiths
  • Score: 9

2:03pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Worcester woman 1964 says...

Amos you are very out of touch if you think of yourself as a man of the people. You are not. If you have any principles left at all then resign and try to get yourself re elected a "independent". Let's see how many of the people support you then
Amos you are very out of touch if you think of yourself as a man of the people. You are not. If you have any principles left at all then resign and try to get yourself re elected a "independent". Let's see how many of the people support you then Worcester woman 1964
  • Score: 33

2:42pm Thu 5 Jun 14

3thinker says...

Ted Elgar wrote:
Alan - you might well be reading some of these comments and having trouble understanding why we, the voters, are angry.
Here are some points to help you understand:

1. You are now a Conservative again. The people of your ward didn't vote for the Conservatives.
2. You seem to be acting in self-interest not the interests of the people you were elected to represent.
3. You appear mercenary. You have travelled the land looking for political office as if it was a career choice; it should be a vocation.
4. You are inconsistent. Changing sides once is understandable, but doing it repeatedly looks bad.
5. You are a hypocrite. Even if it was a long time ago, you were guilty of hypocrisy when you were caught with your pants down on Hampstead Heath. What is past is past, but doing what you have done could also be seen as hypocritical.
6. People weren’t really aware of the council “rowing”, your actions have put the dirty laundry on display. We wanted you to sort it out behind closed doors. You appear to be the problem, not the solution.
7. People want their Mayor to be a kind bumbling kind of person who they can have turn up and be cheerful at public events. You must have misunderstood the ceremonial function of mayor, because in getting that role you have made everyone dislike you.
8. People don’t trust politicians. You have just proved yourself to be everything their prejudices tell them politicians are; e.g. deeply untrustworthy.
9. The public do want you to “get on with it”. Resign and give them the by-election they deserve.

I hope that helps.
Thanks Ted

An excellent summary of the reasons why so many Worcester people are so angry about Alan Amos's actions.

The outstanding issue that hasn't yet been made clear is whether he intends to resign as deputy leader of the County Council Labour group or is he intending to stand as an Independent in Wardon, support the Conservative at the City and be a Labour councillor on the County.

What a complete farce and insult to the local electorate. I'm also surprised the Conservatives administration in the City have been so desperate and unprincipled in welcoming Cllr Amos and giving him the Mayors job. Its only a couple of months ago Marc Bayliss was slagging off Jabba Riaz for being unprincipled in moving from Conservative to Labour when he himself went from Labour to Conservative only a couple of years before. And now this.

If Alan Amos doesn't do the honourable thing I do hope that as many people and organisations as possible will refuse to work with him as mayor.
[quote][p][bold]Ted Elgar[/bold] wrote: Alan - you might well be reading some of these comments and having trouble understanding why we, the voters, are angry. Here are some points to help you understand: 1. You are now a Conservative again. The people of your ward didn't vote for the Conservatives. 2. You seem to be acting in self-interest not the interests of the people you were elected to represent. 3. You appear mercenary. You have travelled the land looking for political office as if it was a career choice; it should be a vocation. 4. You are inconsistent. Changing sides once is understandable, but doing it repeatedly looks bad. 5. You are a hypocrite. Even if it was a long time ago, you were guilty of hypocrisy when you were caught with your pants down on Hampstead Heath. What is past is past, but doing what you have done could also be seen as hypocritical. 6. People weren’t really aware of the council “rowing”, your actions have put the dirty laundry on display. We wanted you to sort it out behind closed doors. You appear to be the problem, not the solution. 7. People want their Mayor to be a kind bumbling kind of person who they can have turn up and be cheerful at public events. You must have misunderstood the ceremonial function of mayor, because in getting that role you have made everyone dislike you. 8. People don’t trust politicians. You have just proved yourself to be everything their prejudices tell them politicians are; e.g. deeply untrustworthy. 9. The public do want you to “get on with it”. Resign and give them the by-election they deserve. I hope that helps.[/p][/quote]Thanks Ted An excellent summary of the reasons why so many Worcester people are so angry about Alan Amos's actions. The outstanding issue that hasn't yet been made clear is whether he intends to resign as deputy leader of the County Council Labour group or is he intending to stand as an Independent in Wardon, support the Conservative at the City and be a Labour councillor on the County. What a complete farce and insult to the local electorate. I'm also surprised the Conservatives administration in the City have been so desperate and unprincipled in welcoming Cllr Amos and giving him the Mayors job. Its only a couple of months ago Marc Bayliss was slagging off Jabba Riaz for being unprincipled in moving from Conservative to Labour when he himself went from Labour to Conservative only a couple of years before. And now this. If Alan Amos doesn't do the honourable thing I do hope that as many people and organisations as possible will refuse to work with him as mayor. 3thinker
  • Score: 45

2:45pm Thu 5 Jun 14

3thinker says...

In a lot of Councils this type of 'dirty dealing' is avoided and by a very simple mechanism.

The mayoral position is offered to either the oldest or longest serving member who has not yet held the position. It takes the politics out of the decision.

Perhaps something Worcester City Council should decide to adopt in future?
In a lot of Councils this type of 'dirty dealing' is avoided and by a very simple mechanism. The mayoral position is offered to either the oldest or longest serving member who has not yet held the position. It takes the politics out of the decision. Perhaps something Worcester City Council should decide to adopt in future? 3thinker
  • Score: 21

2:51pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

Worcestershire is crying out for a unitary authority.
These ridiculous little fiefdoms should be broken up immediately.
Worcestershire is crying out for a unitary authority. These ridiculous little fiefdoms should be broken up immediately. Ted Elgar
  • Score: 25

3:03pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

http://www.ipetition
s.com/petition/alan-
amos-must-resign
http://www.ipetition s.com/petition/alan- amos-must-resign Ted Elgar
  • Score: 20

3:46pm Thu 5 Jun 14

3thinker says...

Ted Elgar wrote:
Worcestershire is crying out for a unitary authority.
These ridiculous little fiefdoms should be broken up immediately.
I couldn't agree more.

They seem happy to cut staff and services without looking at the massive savings that could be made by merging the seven district and county council into a single Unitary Council for the whole of Worcestershire.

Immediately we'd only need one set of councillors instead of eight. The same would apply for expensive chief executive and senior management teams. We'd dramatically reduce all the party political posturing and bickering within and between authorities.

I say this as someone who has worked for a District, City, County and Metropolitan Borough Council and did an MA thesis on local authority structures. The only caveat I would add is that in doing so it would be good to maintain the local parish and town councils as this is not only good for grassroots democracy and the development of decent quality councillors who see the role as a vocation rather than career. Its also were specific local services can be best be tailored to meet local circumstances and needs.

Even better if more power and resources were to be devolved from our over centralised national Government structures.

I'd certainly vote for a councillor or party principled enough to have the setting up of a Unitary Council as one of their key manifesto pledges.
[quote][p][bold]Ted Elgar[/bold] wrote: Worcestershire is crying out for a unitary authority. These ridiculous little fiefdoms should be broken up immediately.[/p][/quote]I couldn't agree more. They seem happy to cut staff and services without looking at the massive savings that could be made by merging the seven district and county council into a single Unitary Council for the whole of Worcestershire. Immediately we'd only need one set of councillors instead of eight. The same would apply for expensive chief executive and senior management teams. We'd dramatically reduce all the party political posturing and bickering within and between authorities. I say this as someone who has worked for a District, City, County and Metropolitan Borough Council and did an MA thesis on local authority structures. The only caveat I would add is that in doing so it would be good to maintain the local parish and town councils as this is not only good for grassroots democracy and the development of decent quality councillors who see the role as a vocation rather than career. Its also were specific local services can be best be tailored to meet local circumstances and needs. Even better if more power and resources were to be devolved from our over centralised national Government structures. I'd certainly vote for a councillor or party principled enough to have the setting up of a Unitary Council as one of their key manifesto pledges. 3thinker
  • Score: 19

3:57pm Thu 5 Jun 14

truth must out says...

RESIGN NOW...THE PEOPLE OF WORCESTER DO NOT WANT YOU AS LORD MAYOR.
RESIGN NOW...THE PEOPLE OF WORCESTER DO NOT WANT YOU AS LORD MAYOR. truth must out
  • Score: 33

4:14pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Shropshirelad says...

Yes, it all sounds terrible doesn't it - which it is but there is more to this saga than what has come from the Worcester News and it's bloggers so far. The cross party movement (from Conservative to Labour) was all above board for Councillor Riaz was it. Now, let's wonder why he did that with (so far) infantile reasons. Funny, Labour was straining at the leash to hold onto office and immediately Riaz joins them, he gets offered Deputy Mayor, **** all the other Labour Councillors like Alan Amos in the offing or hoped to be, for it. Of course the Worcester News is playing it all one way with personal attacks on Councillor Amos and nary a mention of Labour and Councillor Riaz. Now, say Amos had stayed with Labour, Riaz, also a 5 minute wonder would have got Deputy Mayor and we wouldn't have heard a word from our local paper would we. Can I suggest that Ted Elgar asks Riaz the same questions he asks of Amos. When it comes to dirty politics first and foremost must come the Lib Dems, nobody can teach them anything, they are past masters at it, next comes Labour with all the skill at underhand work and dirty business evidenced in this case as one example and last comes the Tories who are hoodwinked like lambs to the slaughter, UKIP have much to learn and they would do well to take up the adage of "softly, softly catchee monkey". Now lets see some criticism and approbrium thrown at Labour and Councillor Riaz.
Yes, it all sounds terrible doesn't it - which it is but there is more to this saga than what has come from the Worcester News and it's bloggers so far. The cross party movement (from Conservative to Labour) was all above board for Councillor Riaz was it. Now, let's wonder why he did that with (so far) infantile reasons. Funny, Labour was straining at the leash to hold onto office and immediately Riaz joins them, he gets offered Deputy Mayor, **** all the other Labour Councillors like Alan Amos in the offing or hoped to be, for it. Of course the Worcester News is playing it all one way with personal attacks on Councillor Amos and nary a mention of Labour and Councillor Riaz. Now, say Amos had stayed with Labour, Riaz, also a 5 minute wonder would have got Deputy Mayor and we wouldn't have heard a word from our local paper would we. Can I suggest that Ted Elgar asks Riaz the same questions he asks of Amos. When it comes to dirty politics first and foremost must come the Lib Dems, nobody can teach them anything, they are past masters at it, next comes Labour with all the skill at underhand work and dirty business evidenced in this case as one example and last comes the Tories who are hoodwinked like lambs to the slaughter, UKIP have much to learn and they would do well to take up the adage of "softly, softly catchee monkey". Now lets see some criticism and approbrium thrown at Labour and Councillor Riaz. Shropshirelad
  • Score: -20

4:22pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Worcester woman 1964 says...

Shropshirelad wrote:
Yes, it all sounds terrible doesn't it - which it is but there is more to this saga than what has come from the Worcester News and it's bloggers so far. The cross party movement (from Conservative to Labour) was all above board for Councillor Riaz was it. Now, let's wonder why he did that with (so far) infantile reasons. Funny, Labour was straining at the leash to hold onto office and immediately Riaz joins them, he gets offered Deputy Mayor, **** all the other Labour Councillors like Alan Amos in the offing or hoped to be, for it. Of course the Worcester News is playing it all one way with personal attacks on Councillor Amos and nary a mention of Labour and Councillor Riaz. Now, say Amos had stayed with Labour, Riaz, also a 5 minute wonder would have got Deputy Mayor and we wouldn't have heard a word from our local paper would we. Can I suggest that Ted Elgar asks Riaz the same questions he asks of Amos. When it comes to dirty politics first and foremost must come the Lib Dems, nobody can teach them anything, they are past masters at it, next comes Labour with all the skill at underhand work and dirty business evidenced in this case as one example and last comes the Tories who are hoodwinked like lambs to the slaughter, UKIP have much to learn and they would do well to take up the adage of "softly, softly catchee monkey". Now lets see some criticism and approbrium thrown at Labour and Councillor Riaz.
Riaz won his cathedral ward seat This was not an easy seat to win. Only 3 years ago there were 3 conservative councillors representing this ward. Riaz went to the electorate as a Labour Party representative and won his seat with a majority of over 200
When will amos do the same. This man of the people needs to have the mandate of the people
[quote][p][bold]Shropshirelad[/bold] wrote: Yes, it all sounds terrible doesn't it - which it is but there is more to this saga than what has come from the Worcester News and it's bloggers so far. The cross party movement (from Conservative to Labour) was all above board for Councillor Riaz was it. Now, let's wonder why he did that with (so far) infantile reasons. Funny, Labour was straining at the leash to hold onto office and immediately Riaz joins them, he gets offered Deputy Mayor, **** all the other Labour Councillors like Alan Amos in the offing or hoped to be, for it. Of course the Worcester News is playing it all one way with personal attacks on Councillor Amos and nary a mention of Labour and Councillor Riaz. Now, say Amos had stayed with Labour, Riaz, also a 5 minute wonder would have got Deputy Mayor and we wouldn't have heard a word from our local paper would we. Can I suggest that Ted Elgar asks Riaz the same questions he asks of Amos. When it comes to dirty politics first and foremost must come the Lib Dems, nobody can teach them anything, they are past masters at it, next comes Labour with all the skill at underhand work and dirty business evidenced in this case as one example and last comes the Tories who are hoodwinked like lambs to the slaughter, UKIP have much to learn and they would do well to take up the adage of "softly, softly catchee monkey". Now lets see some criticism and approbrium thrown at Labour and Councillor Riaz.[/p][/quote]Riaz won his cathedral ward seat This was not an easy seat to win. Only 3 years ago there were 3 conservative councillors representing this ward. Riaz went to the electorate as a Labour Party representative and won his seat with a majority of over 200 When will amos do the same. This man of the people needs to have the mandate of the people Worcester woman 1964
  • Score: 21

4:23pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

When are WN going to allow people to post links sensibly-http://www.
ipetitions.com/petit
ion/alan-amos-must-r
esign
When are WN going to allow people to post links sensibly-http://www. ipetitions.com/petit ion/alan-amos-must-r esign Ted Elgar
  • Score: 5

4:39pm Thu 5 Jun 14

The Villan says...

Shropshirelad they are all as bad as be another. But what the News has done for it's readers is highlight the narcissistic nature of them, with Cllr Amos being the worst in my humble opinion.

The local councillors have acted rather immaturely, across the board from all parties, with certain individuals obviously putting self-interest before their electorate.

I believe Cllr Amos should let a by election in his ward take place again. The people voted for the party not the individual, but if he believes otherwise and he wants to ensure the post of Lord Mayor remains untainted, he should do the right thing. His tenure of Mayor will always called into question whilst this constant bickering goes on about swapping parties and deals done behind the scenes.

I also doubt he will have the cojones to do it as the new Tory cabinet could also lose their new posts and NOC of the council would happen all over again, thus causing a 'groundhog day' scenario.

Lord forbid....a bloody farce!
Shropshirelad they are all as bad as be another. But what the News has done for it's readers is highlight the narcissistic nature of them, with Cllr Amos being the worst in my humble opinion. The local councillors have acted rather immaturely, across the board from all parties, with certain individuals obviously putting self-interest before their electorate. I believe Cllr Amos should let a by election in his ward take place again. The people voted for the party not the individual, but if he believes otherwise and he wants to ensure the post of Lord Mayor remains untainted, he should do the right thing. His tenure of Mayor will always called into question whilst this constant bickering goes on about swapping parties and deals done behind the scenes. I also doubt he will have the cojones to do it as the new Tory cabinet could also lose their new posts and NOC of the council would happen all over again, thus causing a 'groundhog day' scenario. Lord forbid....a bloody farce! The Villan
  • Score: 14

5:06pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Butterfly dreamer says...

When Jabba went over to the Labour Party lots of people was suspicious as each party are when someone changes parties. People thought then that a by election should be called instead of him still holding onto his seat, but at least he did go through the election process and won his seat a few months after changing. Alan Amos on the other hand helped out with the election then changed party shortly afterwards knowing he didnt have to go to the public till 2016. It was only Jabba and Alan who put their name forward as deputy others didnt want the role as whilst its an honourable role its very demanding. Jabba didn't do any deal to get deputy mayor as it was going to be someone else but they couldn't commit to the post and it was open for people to put their name forward. Alan lost the vote of the group and stormed out of the meeting. So whilst the initial doubts may have been at the beginning Jabba has proved himself to his ward / party that he has the confidence of his ward. Can Alan do the same ? he does seem to think that many people have voted for him and not the party - let him prove it !! but he wont !!
When Jabba went over to the Labour Party lots of people was suspicious as each party are when someone changes parties. People thought then that a by election should be called instead of him still holding onto his seat, but at least he did go through the election process and won his seat a few months after changing. Alan Amos on the other hand helped out with the election then changed party shortly afterwards knowing he didnt have to go to the public till 2016. It was only Jabba and Alan who put their name forward as deputy others didnt want the role as whilst its an honourable role its very demanding. Jabba didn't do any deal to get deputy mayor as it was going to be someone else but they couldn't commit to the post and it was open for people to put their name forward. Alan lost the vote of the group and stormed out of the meeting. So whilst the initial doubts may have been at the beginning Jabba has proved himself to his ward / party that he has the confidence of his ward. Can Alan do the same ? he does seem to think that many people have voted for him and not the party - let him prove it !! but he wont !! Butterfly dreamer
  • Score: 18

5:15pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

Riaz has a clear mandate because he has been re-elected as a councillor for Labour and hasn't (at least so far) switched sides (again).

I voted for him and I have to say I was very close for voting for the Conservative candidate because, as a person, he seemed much brighter, more interested in local issues and just a genuine bloke.

I voted for Riaz because of party politics, right or wrong. (I am by no means a life-long Labour supporter, and I'm certainly not partisan). The local Labour party clearly realised they had a difficult candidate in Riaz, but stuck with him in a swing ward, which was surprising to me.

If I look at the candidate they fielded, it is amazing to me that both Riaz and Amos were such flakey and difficult candidates. I would have dropped Riaz and Amos for an easy political-life, but you clearly just cant get the politicians these days..
Riaz has a clear mandate because he has been re-elected as a councillor for Labour and hasn't (at least so far) switched sides (again). I voted for him and I have to say I was very close for voting for the Conservative candidate because, as a person, he seemed much brighter, more interested in local issues and just a genuine bloke. I voted for Riaz because of party politics, right or wrong. (I am by no means a life-long Labour supporter, and I'm certainly not partisan). The local Labour party clearly realised they had a difficult candidate in Riaz, but stuck with him in a swing ward, which was surprising to me. If I look at the candidate they fielded, it is amazing to me that both Riaz and Amos were such flakey and difficult candidates. I would have dropped Riaz and Amos for an easy political-life, but you clearly just cant get the politicians these days.. Ted Elgar
  • Score: 8

5:22pm Thu 5 Jun 14

dropkick55 says...

RESIGN!!!! Turncoat!!!
RESIGN!!!! Turncoat!!! dropkick55
  • Score: 19

6:14pm Thu 5 Jun 14

3thinker says...

A plague on all their houses.

However what has happened in this case has gone above and beyond what is acceptable. Surely its time for the good citizens of Worcester to stand up and make a very clear statement to the political elite that this type of behaviour is unprincipled and undermines local democracy.

Please join the campaign to get Alan Amos to resign

http://www.
ipetitions.com/petit

ion/alan-amos-must-r

esign
A plague on all their houses. However what has happened in this case has gone above and beyond what is acceptable. Surely its time for the good citizens of Worcester to stand up and make a very clear statement to the political elite that this type of behaviour is unprincipled and undermines local democracy. Please join the campaign to get Alan Amos to resign http://www. ipetitions.com/petit ion/alan-amos-must-r esign 3thinker
  • Score: 16

7:05pm Thu 5 Jun 14

bmoc55 says...

A deluge of outrage has hit the headlines.

Strange that there was almost silence when J. Riaz switched from the Conservatives to Labour enabling Comrade Gregson and his Circus to grab power.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
A deluge of outrage has hit the headlines. Strange that there was almost silence when J. Riaz switched from the Conservatives to Labour enabling Comrade Gregson and his Circus to grab power. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. bmoc55
  • Score: -24

7:51pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Worcester woman 1964 says...

bmoc55 wrote:
A deluge of outrage has hit the headlines. Strange that there was almost silence when J. Riaz switched from the Conservatives to Labour enabling Comrade Gregson and his Circus to grab power. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
There is a major difference here. Riaz switched to Labour before the election. He fought hard to win the Cathedral seat for Labour and did so with a large majority
Amos on the other hand waited until the elections were over.. If he was so anti-labour why did he not chose to fight for Warndon as an independent. The answer to this is obvious - he knew that he had absolutely no chance of winning this seat if he was estranged from labour
Also complare Amos' political past with that of Riaz - this is not the first time that Amos has turned
The man is dishonorable. He cares nothing for democracy and is only interested in self-gratification
Do the people of Worcestre really want this as our mayor?
[quote][p][bold]bmoc55[/bold] wrote: A deluge of outrage has hit the headlines. Strange that there was almost silence when J. Riaz switched from the Conservatives to Labour enabling Comrade Gregson and his Circus to grab power. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.[/p][/quote]There is a major difference here. Riaz switched to Labour before the election. He fought hard to win the Cathedral seat for Labour and did so with a large majority Amos on the other hand waited until the elections were over.. If he was so anti-labour why did he not chose to fight for Warndon as an independent. The answer to this is obvious - he knew that he had absolutely no chance of winning this seat if he was estranged from labour Also complare Amos' political past with that of Riaz - this is not the first time that Amos has turned The man is dishonorable. He cares nothing for democracy and is only interested in self-gratification Do the people of Worcestre really want this as our mayor? Worcester woman 1964
  • Score: 24

9:01pm Thu 5 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

I do not know Councillor Alan Amos or what his reason were for resigning from Labour to sit as an independent. I do wonder however if the people calling for him to stand down and re-fight the seat were quite as vocal when Councillor Jabba Riaz switched from Conservative to Labour, a somewhat more dramatic change of party loyalty. It is one thing to get fed up with the antics of a group that you support and another to have an apparent complete reversal of beliefs.

Of course the fact that Councillor Riaz was the nomination of the Labour Group for the position of deputy Mayor might have convinced Councillor Amos that sticking with one party may not be the best path to civic advancement.
I do not know Councillor Alan Amos or what his reason were for resigning from Labour to sit as an independent. I do wonder however if the people calling for him to stand down and re-fight the seat were quite as vocal when Councillor Jabba Riaz switched from Conservative to Labour, a somewhat more dramatic change of party loyalty. It is one thing to get fed up with the antics of a group that you support and another to have an apparent complete reversal of beliefs. Of course the fact that Councillor Riaz was the nomination of the Labour Group for the position of deputy Mayor might have convinced Councillor Amos that sticking with one party may not be the best path to civic advancement. EnorMouse
  • Score: -2

9:37pm Thu 5 Jun 14

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

You're right Amos - the public don't want answers - they are so pig sick of self-serving hypocrites (and I count you as leading the pack) they have just lost interest in voting/politics. Enjoy your life as the Mayor - I hope you trip up and the chain strangles you - wouldn't that be poetic!
You're right Amos - the public don't want answers - they are so pig sick of self-serving hypocrites (and I count you as leading the pack) they have just lost interest in voting/politics. Enjoy your life as the Mayor - I hope you trip up and the chain strangles you - wouldn't that be poetic! imustbeoldiwearacap
  • Score: 13

9:51pm Thu 5 Jun 14

liketoknow says...

bring back the stocks
bring back the stocks liketoknow
  • Score: 8

11:13pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Stuart 1 says...

skychip wrote:
If Councillor Amos has changed from Labour to Independent I would have thought there should be another election because the constituents voted for Labour.
but did they??? the greatest majority didn't vote - only 11% voted labour - hardly a ringing endorsement!
[quote][p][bold]skychip[/bold] wrote: If Councillor Amos has changed from Labour to Independent I would have thought there should be another election because the constituents voted for Labour.[/p][/quote]but did they??? the greatest majority didn't vote - only 11% voted labour - hardly a ringing endorsement! Stuart 1
  • Score: 5

11:17pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Stuart 1 says...

Paul Griffiths wrote:
@denon

Part of the reason why the civic office of Mayor has become so politicised is precisely because of the casting vote. Whichever party forms the administration ideally wants to keep that in reserve, just in case. You could just recognise that fact and give the casting vote to the Council Leader. Or you could leave it with the Mayor and have a presumption in favour of the administration, except perhaps in certain special circumstances.
very true, and the Conservatives can not afford to be complacent - the Mayor is Independent and his natural party is Labour whom for reasons known only to him at this moment he has become disenchanted by. An Independent in a hung council makes sense!
[quote][p][bold]Paul Griffiths[/bold] wrote: @denon Part of the reason why the civic office of Mayor has become so politicised is precisely because of the casting vote. Whichever party forms the administration ideally wants to keep that in reserve, just in case. You could just recognise that fact and give the casting vote to the Council Leader. Or you could leave it with the Mayor and have a presumption in favour of the administration, except perhaps in certain special circumstances.[/p][/quote]very true, and the Conservatives can not afford to be complacent - the Mayor is Independent and his natural party is Labour whom for reasons known only to him at this moment he has become disenchanted by. An Independent in a hung council makes sense! Stuart 1
  • Score: -2

11:18pm Thu 5 Jun 14

MalvernTeacher says...

Doesn't look like there are any voices in support of Amos' cowardly actions! But I doubt he is listening or cares. In an age when the electorate has become increasingly sceptical of the political system, Mr. Amos furthers their disengagement by his self-serving actions. His lack of moral compass is disturbing.
Doesn't look like there are any voices in support of Amos' cowardly actions! But I doubt he is listening or cares. In an age when the electorate has become increasingly sceptical of the political system, Mr. Amos furthers their disengagement by his self-serving actions. His lack of moral compass is disturbing. MalvernTeacher
  • Score: 13

11:18pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Stuart 1 says...

Ted Elgar wrote:
Worcestershire is crying out for a unitary authority.
These ridiculous little fiefdoms should be broken up immediately.
spot on!
[quote][p][bold]Ted Elgar[/bold] wrote: Worcestershire is crying out for a unitary authority. These ridiculous little fiefdoms should be broken up immediately.[/p][/quote]spot on! Stuart 1
  • Score: 9

11:21pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Stuart 1 says...

Worcester woman 1964 wrote:
Shropshirelad wrote:
Yes, it all sounds terrible doesn't it - which it is but there is more to this saga than what has come from the Worcester News and it's bloggers so far. The cross party movement (from Conservative to Labour) was all above board for Councillor Riaz was it. Now, let's wonder why he did that with (so far) infantile reasons. Funny, Labour was straining at the leash to hold onto office and immediately Riaz joins them, he gets offered Deputy Mayor, **** all the other Labour Councillors like Alan Amos in the offing or hoped to be, for it. Of course the Worcester News is playing it all one way with personal attacks on Councillor Amos and nary a mention of Labour and Councillor Riaz. Now, say Amos had stayed with Labour, Riaz, also a 5 minute wonder would have got Deputy Mayor and we wouldn't have heard a word from our local paper would we. Can I suggest that Ted Elgar asks Riaz the same questions he asks of Amos. When it comes to dirty politics first and foremost must come the Lib Dems, nobody can teach them anything, they are past masters at it, next comes Labour with all the skill at underhand work and dirty business evidenced in this case as one example and last comes the Tories who are hoodwinked like lambs to the slaughter, UKIP have much to learn and they would do well to take up the adage of "softly, softly catchee monkey". Now lets see some criticism and approbrium thrown at Labour and Councillor Riaz.
Riaz won his cathedral ward seat This was not an easy seat to win. Only 3 years ago there were 3 conservative councillors representing this ward. Riaz went to the electorate as a Labour Party representative and won his seat with a majority of over 200
When will amos do the same. This man of the people needs to have the mandate of the people
really??
[quote][p][bold]Worcester woman 1964[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shropshirelad[/bold] wrote: Yes, it all sounds terrible doesn't it - which it is but there is more to this saga than what has come from the Worcester News and it's bloggers so far. The cross party movement (from Conservative to Labour) was all above board for Councillor Riaz was it. Now, let's wonder why he did that with (so far) infantile reasons. Funny, Labour was straining at the leash to hold onto office and immediately Riaz joins them, he gets offered Deputy Mayor, **** all the other Labour Councillors like Alan Amos in the offing or hoped to be, for it. Of course the Worcester News is playing it all one way with personal attacks on Councillor Amos and nary a mention of Labour and Councillor Riaz. Now, say Amos had stayed with Labour, Riaz, also a 5 minute wonder would have got Deputy Mayor and we wouldn't have heard a word from our local paper would we. Can I suggest that Ted Elgar asks Riaz the same questions he asks of Amos. When it comes to dirty politics first and foremost must come the Lib Dems, nobody can teach them anything, they are past masters at it, next comes Labour with all the skill at underhand work and dirty business evidenced in this case as one example and last comes the Tories who are hoodwinked like lambs to the slaughter, UKIP have much to learn and they would do well to take up the adage of "softly, softly catchee monkey". Now lets see some criticism and approbrium thrown at Labour and Councillor Riaz.[/p][/quote]Riaz won his cathedral ward seat This was not an easy seat to win. Only 3 years ago there were 3 conservative councillors representing this ward. Riaz went to the electorate as a Labour Party representative and won his seat with a majority of over 200 When will amos do the same. This man of the people needs to have the mandate of the people[/p][/quote]really?? Stuart 1
  • Score: 0

4:31am Fri 6 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

skychip wrote:
If Councillor Amos has changed from Labour to Independent I would have thought there should be another election because the constituents voted for Labour.
Clearly you fail to understand the democratic processes in this country, particularly as they apply to MPs and Councillors. The constituents did not vote for Labour, they voted for Alan Amos and it was Alan Amos that was elected as a Councillor, not some unspecified representative of the Labour Party. The democratic process works on the basis of electing individuals, not political parties.

Indeed up until a number of decades ago, no reference to a party representation was allowed on the ballot paper - if you wanted to vote for a particular party's representative, the very least you needed to know was their name. I would not be averse to going back to such a situation as it might cause us to re-examine the quality of the individuals standing as candidates, rather than just putting a cross next to a logo.
[quote][p][bold]skychip[/bold] wrote: If Councillor Amos has changed from Labour to Independent I would have thought there should be another election because the constituents voted for Labour.[/p][/quote]Clearly you fail to understand the democratic processes in this country, particularly as they apply to MPs and Councillors. The constituents did not vote for Labour, they voted for Alan Amos and it was Alan Amos that was elected as a Councillor, not some unspecified representative of the Labour Party. The democratic process works on the basis of electing individuals, not political parties. Indeed up until a number of decades ago, no reference to a party representation was allowed on the ballot paper - if you wanted to vote for a particular party's representative, the very least you needed to know was their name. I would not be averse to going back to such a situation as it might cause us to re-examine the quality of the individuals standing as candidates, rather than just putting a cross next to a logo. EnorMouse
  • Score: 0

4:40am Fri 6 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

Stuart 1 wrote:
Worcester woman 1964 wrote:
Shropshirelad wrote:
Yes, it all sounds terrible doesn't it - which it is but there is more to this saga than what has come from the Worcester News and it's bloggers so far. The cross party movement (from Conservative to Labour) was all above board for Councillor Riaz was it. Now, let's wonder why he did that with (so far) infantile reasons. Funny, Labour was straining at the leash to hold onto office and immediately Riaz joins them, he gets offered Deputy Mayor, **** all the other Labour Councillors like Alan Amos in the offing or hoped to be, for it. Of course the Worcester News is playing it all one way with personal attacks on Councillor Amos and nary a mention of Labour and Councillor Riaz. Now, say Amos had stayed with Labour, Riaz, also a 5 minute wonder would have got Deputy Mayor and we wouldn't have heard a word from our local paper would we. Can I suggest that Ted Elgar asks Riaz the same questions he asks of Amos. When it comes to dirty politics first and foremost must come the Lib Dems, nobody can teach them anything, they are past masters at it, next comes Labour with all the skill at underhand work and dirty business evidenced in this case as one example and last comes the Tories who are hoodwinked like lambs to the slaughter, UKIP have much to learn and they would do well to take up the adage of "softly, softly catchee monkey". Now lets see some criticism and approbrium thrown at Labour and Councillor Riaz.
Riaz won his cathedral ward seat This was not an easy seat to win. Only 3 years ago there were 3 conservative councillors representing this ward. Riaz went to the electorate as a Labour Party representative and won his seat with a majority of over 200
When will amos do the same. This man of the people needs to have the mandate of the people
really??
If Councillor Amos follows Councillor Riaz's example, then he will serve out the rest of the term that he has been elected for, before deciding if he wishes to seek the mandate of the electorate again.

I seem to recall that there have been a number of Councillors over the last decade who have decided to leave the Labour Group for one reason or another who then went on to win their seat at a subsequent election as an Independent.
[quote][p][bold]Stuart 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worcester woman 1964[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shropshirelad[/bold] wrote: Yes, it all sounds terrible doesn't it - which it is but there is more to this saga than what has come from the Worcester News and it's bloggers so far. The cross party movement (from Conservative to Labour) was all above board for Councillor Riaz was it. Now, let's wonder why he did that with (so far) infantile reasons. Funny, Labour was straining at the leash to hold onto office and immediately Riaz joins them, he gets offered Deputy Mayor, **** all the other Labour Councillors like Alan Amos in the offing or hoped to be, for it. Of course the Worcester News is playing it all one way with personal attacks on Councillor Amos and nary a mention of Labour and Councillor Riaz. Now, say Amos had stayed with Labour, Riaz, also a 5 minute wonder would have got Deputy Mayor and we wouldn't have heard a word from our local paper would we. Can I suggest that Ted Elgar asks Riaz the same questions he asks of Amos. When it comes to dirty politics first and foremost must come the Lib Dems, nobody can teach them anything, they are past masters at it, next comes Labour with all the skill at underhand work and dirty business evidenced in this case as one example and last comes the Tories who are hoodwinked like lambs to the slaughter, UKIP have much to learn and they would do well to take up the adage of "softly, softly catchee monkey". Now lets see some criticism and approbrium thrown at Labour and Councillor Riaz.[/p][/quote]Riaz won his cathedral ward seat This was not an easy seat to win. Only 3 years ago there were 3 conservative councillors representing this ward. Riaz went to the electorate as a Labour Party representative and won his seat with a majority of over 200 When will amos do the same. This man of the people needs to have the mandate of the people[/p][/quote]really??[/p][/quote]If Councillor Amos follows Councillor Riaz's example, then he will serve out the rest of the term that he has been elected for, before deciding if he wishes to seek the mandate of the electorate again. I seem to recall that there have been a number of Councillors over the last decade who have decided to leave the Labour Group for one reason or another who then went on to win their seat at a subsequent election as an Independent. EnorMouse
  • Score: -1

7:58am Fri 6 Jun 14

solar1 says...

My question is why, if he's now an "Independent" councillor, didn't Alan Amos REMAIN Independent and vote according to the wishes of his electorate. Clearly he is not Independent but Conservative.

I have no particular Party allegience but I do feel that this latest debacle in local politics shows the Councillors of Worcester City in a very poor light generally.

I feel there is a similarity between our local situation and the publicised Big Brother series with "Power Trip" as its' theme.
My question is why, if he's now an "Independent" councillor, didn't Alan Amos REMAIN Independent and vote according to the wishes of his electorate. Clearly he is not Independent but Conservative. I have no particular Party allegience but I do feel that this latest debacle in local politics shows the Councillors of Worcester City in a very poor light generally. I feel there is a similarity between our local situation and the publicised Big Brother series with "Power Trip" as its' theme. solar1
  • Score: 10

8:43am Fri 6 Jun 14

denon says...

As Mike Layland said being Independent doesn't mean you are non-political, you are just non-Party.

The rantings on here just show what stick Independents have to take.

Remember all the horrid things people wrote, in post a comment, about the Independent Police Commissioner Bill Longmore

Who would be an independent in an election!!!!
As Mike Layland said being Independent doesn't mean you are non-political, you are just non-Party. The rantings on here just show what stick Independents have to take. Remember all the horrid things people wrote, in post a comment, about the Independent Police Commissioner Bill Longmore Who would be an independent in an election!!!! denon
  • Score: -5

8:57am Fri 6 Jun 14

High Time says...

MalvernTeacher wrote:
Doesn't look like there are any voices in support of Amos' cowardly actions! But I doubt he is listening or cares. In an age when the electorate has become increasingly sceptical of the political system, Mr. Amos furthers their disengagement by his self-serving actions. His lack of moral compass is disturbing.
I would not say cowardly! He is either brave or very think skinned to do what he has done. It has created lots of interest and interaction amongst W/N readers, but, with the low circulation of the W/N the majority of people in Worcester don't know or don't care about what goes on at the Guildhall. Some of the comments that have been made on here are obviously from the politically minded, many probably Party members, and clearly orchestrated.
[quote][p][bold]MalvernTeacher[/bold] wrote: Doesn't look like there are any voices in support of Amos' cowardly actions! But I doubt he is listening or cares. In an age when the electorate has become increasingly sceptical of the political system, Mr. Amos furthers their disengagement by his self-serving actions. His lack of moral compass is disturbing.[/p][/quote]I would not say cowardly! He is either brave or very think skinned to do what he has done. It has created lots of interest and interaction amongst W/N readers, but, with the low circulation of the W/N the majority of people in Worcester don't know or don't care about what goes on at the Guildhall. Some of the comments that have been made on here are obviously from the politically minded, many probably Party members, and clearly orchestrated. High Time
  • Score: -6

8:58am Fri 6 Jun 14

ringthembells says...

Marc Bayliss quoted today as saying he can't see what the fuss is about : "What is the fundamental difference between what Alan's done and what the Green or Lib Dem wanted ?"
So no fundamental difference between arguing for the policies which you made clear at the point at which your constituents voted for you, and offering your vote for the reward of a ceremonial position ??
Well at least Alan Amos is going to have one friend in the council : Marc Bayliss clearly thinks it's a fuss about nothing.
Marc Bayliss quoted today as saying he can't see what the fuss is about : "What is the fundamental difference between what Alan's done and what the Green or Lib Dem wanted ?" So no fundamental difference between arguing for the policies which you made clear at the point at which your constituents voted for you, and offering your vote for the reward of a ceremonial position ?? Well at least Alan Amos is going to have one friend in the council : Marc Bayliss clearly thinks it's a fuss about nothing. ringthembells
  • Score: 6

9:14am Fri 6 Jun 14

denon says...

Who would want to be Mayor of Worcester?
Who would want to be Mayor of Worcester? denon
  • Score: -1

9:25am Fri 6 Jun 14

Jabbadad says...

Well we can all see why Marc Bayliss thinks it's a fuss about nothing, but it's really Birds of a feather since Bayliss did the same by having been elected as a Labour councillor in the Arbouretum Ward he then had the miraculous CONservative conversion (Akin to George Cowley) and then jumped ship with the votes he had been entrusted with by the Arbouretum voters to a safe ward given to him for his poitical treachury by his now Buddy Simon Geragthy, who we see as the person behind these deeds Skuldugery or political mistrust.
If there were such a thing as political morality many of these local politicians would FAIL miserably.
However more elections are coming next year and we must not let these political Pirates forget these deeply offensive actions.
AND THEY WONDER WHY LESS PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED IN POLITICS TODAY, WHEN THEY SEEM TO STAND IN THE SAME TROUGH.
CLEAN YOUR ACTS UP.
Well we can all see why Marc Bayliss thinks it's a fuss about nothing, but it's really Birds of a feather since Bayliss did the same by having been elected as a Labour councillor in the Arbouretum Ward he then had the miraculous CONservative conversion (Akin to George Cowley) and then jumped ship with the votes he had been entrusted with by the Arbouretum voters to a safe ward given to him for his poitical treachury by his now Buddy Simon Geragthy, who we see as the person behind these deeds Skuldugery or political mistrust. If there were such a thing as political morality many of these local politicians would FAIL miserably. However more elections are coming next year and we must not let these political Pirates forget these deeply offensive actions. AND THEY WONDER WHY LESS PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED IN POLITICS TODAY, WHEN THEY SEEM TO STAND IN THE SAME TROUGH. CLEAN YOUR ACTS UP. Jabbadad
  • Score: 6

9:32am Fri 6 Jun 14

3thinker says...

ringthembells wrote:
Marc Bayliss quoted today as saying he can't see what the fuss is about : "What is the fundamental difference between what Alan's done and what the Green or Lib Dem wanted ?"
So no fundamental difference between arguing for the policies which you made clear at the point at which your constituents voted for you, and offering your vote for the reward of a ceremonial position ??
Well at least Alan Amos is going to have one friend in the council : Marc Bayliss clearly thinks it's a fuss about nothing.
Of course Marc Bayliss can't see anything wrong in what Alan Amos has done. He's done something similar himself. Given his Labour past I wouldn't be surprised if its Marc himself that did the dirty deal.

As recently retired former Conservative, Aubrey Tarbuck says "I was shocked at what happened - it makes a mockery of the mayor's office. He's let down the people he represents, it's a slight on the mayor's role, he shouldn't do it."

My biggest concern is that the unprincipled actions of a few councillors like Alan Amos undermine local democracy and public respect for all councillors. We actually have some very good councillors from various parties on the City Council. It would be a real shame if in future decent individuals with their constituents rather than personal interests didn't put themselves forward for election. We'd end up with the majority being self seeking, power crazed individuals who'd do anything to further their own personal interests.

My hope is that all the parties will now sit back and reflect on why what has just happened is so shabby and hopefully recognise why it is so damaging in terms of the way the public sees them, their parties and the City Council.
[quote][p][bold]ringthembells[/bold] wrote: Marc Bayliss quoted today as saying he can't see what the fuss is about : "What is the fundamental difference between what Alan's done and what the Green or Lib Dem wanted ?" So no fundamental difference between arguing for the policies which you made clear at the point at which your constituents voted for you, and offering your vote for the reward of a ceremonial position ?? Well at least Alan Amos is going to have one friend in the council : Marc Bayliss clearly thinks it's a fuss about nothing.[/p][/quote]Of course Marc Bayliss can't see anything wrong in what Alan Amos has done. He's done something similar himself. Given his Labour past I wouldn't be surprised if its Marc himself that did the dirty deal. As recently retired former Conservative, Aubrey Tarbuck says "I was shocked at what happened - it makes a mockery of the mayor's office. He's let down the people he represents, it's a slight on the mayor's role, he shouldn't do it." My biggest concern is that the unprincipled actions of a few councillors like Alan Amos undermine local democracy and public respect for all councillors. We actually have some very good councillors from various parties on the City Council. It would be a real shame if in future decent individuals with their constituents rather than personal interests didn't put themselves forward for election. We'd end up with the majority being self seeking, power crazed individuals who'd do anything to further their own personal interests. My hope is that all the parties will now sit back and reflect on why what has just happened is so shabby and hopefully recognise why it is so damaging in terms of the way the public sees them, their parties and the City Council. 3thinker
  • Score: 12

9:41am Fri 6 Jun 14

3thinker says...

denon wrote:
Who would want to be Mayor of Worcester?
Alan Amos.

He was so desperate he sold out on his integrity and loyalties so he could dress up like a transvestite and wear a gold chain. Sad old bugger eh!
[quote][p][bold]denon[/bold] wrote: Who would want to be Mayor of Worcester?[/p][/quote]Alan Amos. He was so desperate he sold out on his integrity and loyalties so he could dress up like a transvestite and wear a gold chain. Sad old bugger eh! 3thinker
  • Score: 11

11:32am Fri 6 Jun 14

Kent supporter says...

As an outsider looking to move to Worcester, I find this whole Mayoral debarcle indicative of what is wrong with British politics and why ever decreasing numbers of people bother to vote.
The whole system needs a complete overhaul as in it's current form it is self serving for these career politicians. Why does this country need in excess of 600 MP's. If America can survive with 200 Senators for a population of around seven times that of the U.K? Why do we need more?
There are rumours that the 'Houses of Parliament' will need repairs of around four billion pounds and probably more knowing the track record of Westminster to sign ridiculous contracts that either don't work or end up costing significantly more. Lovely and historic building though that is, in these austere times when we are all being asked to tighten our belts again and again, can we really justify such a cost? As a nation we are allegedly paying a billion pounds each week just to pay for the interest on our national debt, a debt by the way I have heard that has increased between a third and half since the Coalition Government took over!
Indeed why are so many of the Government departments in London, why are they not spread around the U.K. into areas of high unemployment and where building and land values are lower. The cost of such moves would be high but should be more than covered by the cost from the sale of the London properties and who knows free up land for much needed affordable housing in London, rather than expensive homes for rich foreigners with in some cases dubiously attained huge wealth that successive Governments and Mayor Boris Johnson seems to favour.
I even question in these days of technology why there really needs to be a full Parliament building, why cannot the elected members of parliament have video links from their constituencies instead which would save on all the ridiculous travel and accommodation expenses, they could then have cabinet meets in an altogether smaller room/building say in the NEC and perhaps hire out venues a couple of times a year at different locations around the country for full MP debates so there are opportunities for members of the public to watch proceedings instead of things being so London centric.
With a more modern approach we could pay the lesser number of MP's a better salary i.e. more than many Council leaders award themselves and dispense with the personal MP expenses that have caused such public anger. Let's stop being hoodwinked by the MP's/Lords propaganda that it is tradition/constituti
nal and should not be changed, the current political system is costing us too much money, so to use the 'Tory' motto let us have value for money and to my way of thinking a British constitution that we the people actually have a say and vote on. Why is Britain the only major country in Europe that has never given it's people the right to vote on it's own constitution? What are MP's and in the context of the article Councillors affraid of? That we might actually find out what they are getting up to, supposedly in our name and for our good? That does not mean I am advocating removing the Monarchy, the main thrust of my point is that MP's, Councillors and Mayors should work for and serve us not themselves.
Therefore things like the public right to sack an MP's should be enshrined in that new constitution as indeed should our right to vote on EU legislation. The MP's cannot be trusted to sign these agreements on the EU on our behalf, we need to know what they are planning to sign and vote on it ourselves before the Nation is locked in and if this had been done in the past we would not be in this sorry state where Brussels has as much control on our daily life as it does and waves of immigration on the scale we have seen might never have happened. I am not anti- immigration but we should have had the right to limit the numbers, so they do not upset our way of life by contributing the the current housing shortage crisis by making that crisis even worse, the shortage of school places and the cost of teaching some of these children and indeed people to speak English from which ever part of the world they come from. Should foreign nationals with serious criminal records be let in or more importantly be let out of their country of birth? So in the case of the Worcester Mayor, the people should have the right to pick and chose candidates and have the right to remove them and in my opinion Mr Amos should resign the Mayoral post and a set of candidates be ideally nominated by the public so the City chooses it's Mayor. Furthermore there should be a by-election in his ward so we can find out if the electorate that voted voted for him or his party. If he again wins the vote then he could stand as a Mayoral candidate.
Sorry for the long winded rant but this sort of distasteful political episode really annoys me and has a distinct smell to it!
As an outsider looking to move to Worcester, I find this whole Mayoral debarcle indicative of what is wrong with British politics and why ever decreasing numbers of people bother to vote. The whole system needs a complete overhaul as in it's current form it is self serving for these career politicians. Why does this country need in excess of 600 MP's. If America can survive with 200 Senators for a population of around seven times that of the U.K? Why do we need more? There are rumours that the 'Houses of Parliament' will need repairs of around four billion pounds and probably more knowing the track record of Westminster to sign ridiculous contracts that either don't work or end up costing significantly more. Lovely and historic building though that is, in these austere times when we are all being asked to tighten our belts again and again, can we really justify such a cost? As a nation we are allegedly paying a billion pounds each week just to pay for the interest on our national debt, a debt by the way I have heard that has increased between a third and half since the Coalition Government took over! Indeed why are so many of the Government departments in London, why are they not spread around the U.K. into areas of high unemployment and where building and land values are lower. The cost of such moves would be high but should be more than covered by the cost from the sale of the London properties and who knows free up land for much needed affordable housing in London, rather than expensive homes for rich foreigners with in some cases dubiously attained huge wealth that successive Governments and Mayor Boris Johnson seems to favour. I even question in these days of technology why there really needs to be a full Parliament building, why cannot the elected members of parliament have video links from their constituencies instead which would save on all the ridiculous travel and accommodation expenses, they could then have cabinet meets in an altogether smaller room/building say in the NEC and perhaps hire out venues a couple of times a year at different locations around the country for full MP debates so there are opportunities for members of the public to watch proceedings instead of things being so London centric. With a more modern approach we could pay the lesser number of MP's a better salary i.e. more than many Council leaders award themselves and dispense with the personal MP expenses that have caused such public anger. Let's stop being hoodwinked by the MP's/Lords propaganda that it is tradition/constituti nal and should not be changed, the current political system is costing us too much money, so to use the 'Tory' motto let us have value for money and to my way of thinking a British constitution that we the people actually have a say and vote on. Why is Britain the only major country in Europe that has never given it's people the right to vote on it's own constitution? What are MP's and in the context of the article Councillors affraid of? That we might actually find out what they are getting up to, supposedly in our name and for our good? That does not mean I am advocating removing the Monarchy, the main thrust of my point is that MP's, Councillors and Mayors should work for and serve us not themselves. Therefore things like the public right to sack an MP's should be enshrined in that new constitution as indeed should our right to vote on EU legislation. The MP's cannot be trusted to sign these agreements on the EU on our behalf, we need to know what they are planning to sign and vote on it ourselves before the Nation is locked in and if this had been done in the past we would not be in this sorry state where Brussels has as much control on our daily life as it does and waves of immigration on the scale we have seen might never have happened. I am not anti- immigration but we should have had the right to limit the numbers, so they do not upset our way of life by contributing the the current housing shortage crisis by making that crisis even worse, the shortage of school places and the cost of teaching some of these children and indeed people to speak English from which ever part of the world they come from. Should foreign nationals with serious criminal records be let in or more importantly be let out of their country of birth? So in the case of the Worcester Mayor, the people should have the right to pick and chose candidates and have the right to remove them and in my opinion Mr Amos should resign the Mayoral post and a set of candidates be ideally nominated by the public so the City chooses it's Mayor. Furthermore there should be a by-election in his ward so we can find out if the electorate that voted voted for him or his party. If he again wins the vote then he could stand as a Mayoral candidate. Sorry for the long winded rant but this sort of distasteful political episode really annoys me and has a distinct smell to it! Kent supporter
  • Score: 3

1:11pm Fri 6 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

3thinker wrote:
ringthembells wrote:
Marc Bayliss quoted today as saying he can't see what the fuss is about : "What is the fundamental difference between what Alan's done and what the Green or Lib Dem wanted ?"
So no fundamental difference between arguing for the policies which you made clear at the point at which your constituents voted for you, and offering your vote for the reward of a ceremonial position ??
Well at least Alan Amos is going to have one friend in the council : Marc Bayliss clearly thinks it's a fuss about nothing.
Of course Marc Bayliss can't see anything wrong in what Alan Amos has done. He's done something similar himself. Given his Labour past I wouldn't be surprised if its Marc himself that did the dirty deal.

As recently retired former Conservative, Aubrey Tarbuck says "I was shocked at what happened - it makes a mockery of the mayor's office. He's let down the people he represents, it's a slight on the mayor's role, he shouldn't do it."

My biggest concern is that the unprincipled actions of a few councillors like Alan Amos undermine local democracy and public respect for all councillors. We actually have some very good councillors from various parties on the City Council. It would be a real shame if in future decent individuals with their constituents rather than personal interests didn't put themselves forward for election. We'd end up with the majority being self seeking, power crazed individuals who'd do anything to further their own personal interests.

My hope is that all the parties will now sit back and reflect on why what has just happened is so shabby and hopefully recognise why it is so damaging in terms of the way the public sees them, their parties and the City Council.
wrote:
My biggest concern is that the unprincipled actions of a few councillors like Alan Amos undermine local democracy and public respect for all councillors. We actually have some very good councillors from various parties on the City Council. It would be a real shame if in future decent individuals with their constituents rather than personal interests didn't put themselves forward for election. We'd end up with the majority being self seeking, power crazed individuals who'd do anything to further their own personal interests.

My hope is that all the parties will now sit back and reflect on why what has just happened is so shabby and hopefully recognise why it is so damaging in terms of the way the public sees them, their parties and the City Council.


It seems to me that the real problem with local government is not so much the individuals involved, but the party politics. There used to be a time and there are still places where the Council is mainly made up of Independents. These individuals get elected on their own personal merits and then simply run local services to the best of their ability, without any overriding political agenda. Decisions are made because they are considered to be the best decisions and individuals can pick which side they are on, based solely on their take of the issues involved.
[quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ringthembells[/bold] wrote: Marc Bayliss quoted today as saying he can't see what the fuss is about : "What is the fundamental difference between what Alan's done and what the Green or Lib Dem wanted ?" So no fundamental difference between arguing for the policies which you made clear at the point at which your constituents voted for you, and offering your vote for the reward of a ceremonial position ?? Well at least Alan Amos is going to have one friend in the council : Marc Bayliss clearly thinks it's a fuss about nothing.[/p][/quote]Of course Marc Bayliss can't see anything wrong in what Alan Amos has done. He's done something similar himself. Given his Labour past I wouldn't be surprised if its Marc himself that did the dirty deal. As recently retired former Conservative, Aubrey Tarbuck says "I was shocked at what happened - it makes a mockery of the mayor's office. He's let down the people he represents, it's a slight on the mayor's role, he shouldn't do it." My biggest concern is that the unprincipled actions of a few councillors like Alan Amos undermine local democracy and public respect for all councillors. We actually have some very good councillors from various parties on the City Council. It would be a real shame if in future decent individuals with their constituents rather than personal interests didn't put themselves forward for election. We'd end up with the majority being self seeking, power crazed individuals who'd do anything to further their own personal interests. My hope is that all the parties will now sit back and reflect on why what has just happened is so shabby and hopefully recognise why it is so damaging in terms of the way the public sees them, their parties and the City Council.[/p][/quote][quote][p][bold3thinker][/bold] wrote: My biggest concern is that the unprincipled actions of a few councillors like Alan Amos undermine local democracy and public respect for all councillors. We actually have some very good councillors from various parties on the City Council. It would be a real shame if in future decent individuals with their constituents rather than personal interests didn't put themselves forward for election. We'd end up with the majority being self seeking, power crazed individuals who'd do anything to further their own personal interests. My hope is that all the parties will now sit back and reflect on why what has just happened is so shabby and hopefully recognise why it is so damaging in terms of the way the public sees them, their parties and the City Council.[/p][/quote] It seems to me that the real problem with local government is not so much the individuals involved, but the party politics. There used to be a time and there are still places where the Council is mainly made up of Independents. These individuals get elected on their own personal merits and then simply run local services to the best of their ability, without any overriding political agenda. Decisions are made because they are considered to be the best decisions and individuals can pick which side they are on, based solely on their take of the issues involved. EnorMouse
  • Score: 5

1:11pm Fri 6 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

3thinker wrote:
ringthembells wrote:
Marc Bayliss quoted today as saying he can't see what the fuss is about : "What is the fundamental difference between what Alan's done and what the Green or Lib Dem wanted ?"
So no fundamental difference between arguing for the policies which you made clear at the point at which your constituents voted for you, and offering your vote for the reward of a ceremonial position ??
Well at least Alan Amos is going to have one friend in the council : Marc Bayliss clearly thinks it's a fuss about nothing.
Of course Marc Bayliss can't see anything wrong in what Alan Amos has done. He's done something similar himself. Given his Labour past I wouldn't be surprised if its Marc himself that did the dirty deal.

As recently retired former Conservative, Aubrey Tarbuck says "I was shocked at what happened - it makes a mockery of the mayor's office. He's let down the people he represents, it's a slight on the mayor's role, he shouldn't do it."

My biggest concern is that the unprincipled actions of a few councillors like Alan Amos undermine local democracy and public respect for all councillors. We actually have some very good councillors from various parties on the City Council. It would be a real shame if in future decent individuals with their constituents rather than personal interests didn't put themselves forward for election. We'd end up with the majority being self seeking, power crazed individuals who'd do anything to further their own personal interests.

My hope is that all the parties will now sit back and reflect on why what has just happened is so shabby and hopefully recognise why it is so damaging in terms of the way the public sees them, their parties and the City Council.
wrote:
My biggest concern is that the unprincipled actions of a few councillors like Alan Amos undermine local democracy and public respect for all councillors. We actually have some very good councillors from various parties on the City Council. It would be a real shame if in future decent individuals with their constituents rather than personal interests didn't put themselves forward for election. We'd end up with the majority being self seeking, power crazed individuals who'd do anything to further their own personal interests.

My hope is that all the parties will now sit back and reflect on why what has just happened is so shabby and hopefully recognise why it is so damaging in terms of the way the public sees them, their parties and the City Council.


It seems to me that the real problem with local government is not so much the individuals involved, but the party politics. There used to be a time and there are still places where the Council is mainly made up of Independents. These individuals get elected on their own personal merits and then simply run local services to the best of their ability, without any overriding political agenda. Decisions are made because they are considered to be the best decisions and individuals can pick which side they are on, based solely on their take of the issues involved.
[quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ringthembells[/bold] wrote: Marc Bayliss quoted today as saying he can't see what the fuss is about : "What is the fundamental difference between what Alan's done and what the Green or Lib Dem wanted ?" So no fundamental difference between arguing for the policies which you made clear at the point at which your constituents voted for you, and offering your vote for the reward of a ceremonial position ?? Well at least Alan Amos is going to have one friend in the council : Marc Bayliss clearly thinks it's a fuss about nothing.[/p][/quote]Of course Marc Bayliss can't see anything wrong in what Alan Amos has done. He's done something similar himself. Given his Labour past I wouldn't be surprised if its Marc himself that did the dirty deal. As recently retired former Conservative, Aubrey Tarbuck says "I was shocked at what happened - it makes a mockery of the mayor's office. He's let down the people he represents, it's a slight on the mayor's role, he shouldn't do it." My biggest concern is that the unprincipled actions of a few councillors like Alan Amos undermine local democracy and public respect for all councillors. We actually have some very good councillors from various parties on the City Council. It would be a real shame if in future decent individuals with their constituents rather than personal interests didn't put themselves forward for election. We'd end up with the majority being self seeking, power crazed individuals who'd do anything to further their own personal interests. My hope is that all the parties will now sit back and reflect on why what has just happened is so shabby and hopefully recognise why it is so damaging in terms of the way the public sees them, their parties and the City Council.[/p][/quote][quote][p][bold3thinker][/bold] wrote: My biggest concern is that the unprincipled actions of a few councillors like Alan Amos undermine local democracy and public respect for all councillors. We actually have some very good councillors from various parties on the City Council. It would be a real shame if in future decent individuals with their constituents rather than personal interests didn't put themselves forward for election. We'd end up with the majority being self seeking, power crazed individuals who'd do anything to further their own personal interests. My hope is that all the parties will now sit back and reflect on why what has just happened is so shabby and hopefully recognise why it is so damaging in terms of the way the public sees them, their parties and the City Council.[/p][/quote] It seems to me that the real problem with local government is not so much the individuals involved, but the party politics. There used to be a time and there are still places where the Council is mainly made up of Independents. These individuals get elected on their own personal merits and then simply run local services to the best of their ability, without any overriding political agenda. Decisions are made because they are considered to be the best decisions and individuals can pick which side they are on, based solely on their take of the issues involved. EnorMouse
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Jabbadad says...

EnorMouse you are quite wrong about the Indepenents Neither Mike Layland nor Margeret Layland were Labour members nor did they Steal by defection any votes entrusted to them while they were Labour Councillors.Qute unlike Bayliss and Amos.
They stood as Independent Councillors and were elected as Independents. Even when they attendedmeetings of The Association of Independents Councillors Stan Knowles, Mike Francis, Margaret Layland, and Mike Layland were totally independent of each other, it was political Utopia. There was no Whip and although Mike Layland was the senior in time served Independent councillor he was not the leader, because there was no Leader. The Association of Independents had a constitution, Bak account, Treasurer, Secretaryand a Life President George Drew and the rest of the members just attended the meetings and did the work in the Wards and at election times.
They were good days to be associated with politics, and no Vote bartering as now, and the Independents had the casting votes for some time in Worcester, and never abused the privalege.
I fear that with Geraghty, Bayliss, Hodgson, Roberts, Mitchell and ( Amos) we have the NEW CONservatives. And what we are seeing is quite scary isn't it?
Remember New Labour?
EnorMouse you are quite wrong about the Indepenents Neither Mike Layland nor Margeret Layland were Labour members nor did they Steal by defection any votes entrusted to them while they were Labour Councillors.Qute unlike Bayliss and Amos. They stood as Independent Councillors and were elected as Independents. Even when they attendedmeetings of The Association of Independents Councillors Stan Knowles, Mike Francis, Margaret Layland, and Mike Layland were totally independent of each other, it was political Utopia. There was no Whip and although Mike Layland was the senior in time served Independent councillor he was not the leader, because there was no Leader. The Association of Independents had a constitution, Bak account, Treasurer, Secretaryand a Life President George Drew and the rest of the members just attended the meetings and did the work in the Wards and at election times. They were good days to be associated with politics, and no Vote bartering as now, and the Independents had the casting votes for some time in Worcester, and never abused the privalege. I fear that with Geraghty, Bayliss, Hodgson, Roberts, Mitchell and ( Amos) we have the NEW CONservatives. And what we are seeing is quite scary isn't it? Remember New Labour? Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Marcbayliss says...

Jabbadad wrote:
EnorMouse you are quite wrong about the Indepenents Neither Mike Layland nor Margeret Layland were Labour members nor did they Steal by defection any votes entrusted to them while they were Labour Councillors.Qute unlike Bayliss and Amos.
They stood as Independent Councillors and were elected as Independents. Even when they attendedmeetings of The Association of Independents Councillors Stan Knowles, Mike Francis, Margaret Layland, and Mike Layland were totally independent of each other, it was political Utopia. There was no Whip and although Mike Layland was the senior in time served Independent councillor he was not the leader, because there was no Leader. The Association of Independents had a constitution, Bak account, Treasurer, Secretaryand a Life President George Drew and the rest of the members just attended the meetings and did the work in the Wards and at election times.
They were good days to be associated with politics, and no Vote bartering as now, and the Independents had the casting votes for some time in Worcester, and never abused the privalege.
I fear that with Geraghty, Bayliss, Hodgson, Roberts, Mitchell and ( Amos) we have the NEW CONservatives. And what we are seeing is quite scary isn't it?
Remember New Labour?
Dear Brian,

I am afraid you are wrong. Margaret Layland was a Labour councillor who quit the party during her term to sit as an independent the same as Alan Amos has done. She subsequently stood and won as an independent. I know this does not fit with your narrative but best to stick to the facts.

Marc
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: EnorMouse you are quite wrong about the Indepenents Neither Mike Layland nor Margeret Layland were Labour members nor did they Steal by defection any votes entrusted to them while they were Labour Councillors.Qute unlike Bayliss and Amos. They stood as Independent Councillors and were elected as Independents. Even when they attendedmeetings of The Association of Independents Councillors Stan Knowles, Mike Francis, Margaret Layland, and Mike Layland were totally independent of each other, it was political Utopia. There was no Whip and although Mike Layland was the senior in time served Independent councillor he was not the leader, because there was no Leader. The Association of Independents had a constitution, Bak account, Treasurer, Secretaryand a Life President George Drew and the rest of the members just attended the meetings and did the work in the Wards and at election times. They were good days to be associated with politics, and no Vote bartering as now, and the Independents had the casting votes for some time in Worcester, and never abused the privalege. I fear that with Geraghty, Bayliss, Hodgson, Roberts, Mitchell and ( Amos) we have the NEW CONservatives. And what we are seeing is quite scary isn't it? Remember New Labour?[/p][/quote]Dear Brian, I am afraid you are wrong. Margaret Layland was a Labour councillor who quit the party during her term to sit as an independent the same as Alan Amos has done. She subsequently stood and won as an independent. I know this does not fit with your narrative but best to stick to the facts. Marc Marcbayliss
  • Score: -7

3:04pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

Lots of very unhappy people signing the petition
http://ipt.io/rvud
Lots of very unhappy people signing the petition http://ipt.io/rvud Ted Elgar
  • Score: 9

3:28pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Keith B says...

Paul Griffiths wrote:
I wonder if perhaps the time has come for the mayorlty no longer to be bestowed by councillors on one of their own, but awarded annually by an independent body to a worthy citizen nominated by the public?
Good idea - an elected Mayor.
[quote][p][bold]Paul Griffiths[/bold] wrote: I wonder if perhaps the time has come for the mayorlty no longer to be bestowed by councillors on one of their own, but awarded annually by an independent body to a worthy citizen nominated by the public?[/p][/quote]Good idea - an elected Mayor. Keith B
  • Score: 4

3:30pm Fri 6 Jun 14

denon says...

3thinker

A bit dangerous quoting Aubrey Tarbuck.

"As recently retired former Conservative, Aubrey Tarbuck says "I was shocked at what happened - it makes a mockery of the mayor's office. He's let down the people he represents, it's a slight on the mayor's role, he shouldn't do it."

Tarbuck was an Independent council on Malvern Hills Council and at the same time a Conservative Councillor on Worcester City. Split personality Tarbuck
3thinker A bit dangerous quoting Aubrey Tarbuck. "As recently retired former Conservative, Aubrey Tarbuck says "I was shocked at what happened - it makes a mockery of the mayor's office. He's let down the people he represents, it's a slight on the mayor's role, he shouldn't do it." Tarbuck was an Independent council on Malvern Hills Council and at the same time a Conservative Councillor on Worcester City. Split personality Tarbuck denon
  • Score: 2

3:32pm Fri 6 Jun 14

denon says...

Who is Brian ....Jabbadad ?
Who is Brian ....Jabbadad ? denon
  • Score: 4

4:29pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Jabbadad says...

Wife & family would like to know.
Wife & family would like to know. Jabbadad
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Fri 6 Jun 14

brooksider says...

Kent supporter wrote:
As an outsider looking to move to Worcester, I find this whole Mayoral debarcle indicative of what is wrong with British politics and why ever decreasing numbers of people bother to vote.
The whole system needs a complete overhaul as in it's current form it is self serving for these career politicians. Why does this country need in excess of 600 MP's. If America can survive with 200 Senators for a population of around seven times that of the U.K? Why do we need more?
There are rumours that the 'Houses of Parliament' will need repairs of around four billion pounds and probably more knowing the track record of Westminster to sign ridiculous contracts that either don't work or end up costing significantly more. Lovely and historic building though that is, in these austere times when we are all being asked to tighten our belts again and again, can we really justify such a cost? As a nation we are allegedly paying a billion pounds each week just to pay for the interest on our national debt, a debt by the way I have heard that has increased between a third and half since the Coalition Government took over!
Indeed why are so many of the Government departments in London, why are they not spread around the U.K. into areas of high unemployment and where building and land values are lower. The cost of such moves would be high but should be more than covered by the cost from the sale of the London properties and who knows free up land for much needed affordable housing in London, rather than expensive homes for rich foreigners with in some cases dubiously attained huge wealth that successive Governments and Mayor Boris Johnson seems to favour.
I even question in these days of technology why there really needs to be a full Parliament building, why cannot the elected members of parliament have video links from their constituencies instead which would save on all the ridiculous travel and accommodation expenses, they could then have cabinet meets in an altogether smaller room/building say in the NEC and perhaps hire out venues a couple of times a year at different locations around the country for full MP debates so there are opportunities for members of the public to watch proceedings instead of things being so London centric.
With a more modern approach we could pay the lesser number of MP's a better salary i.e. more than many Council leaders award themselves and dispense with the personal MP expenses that have caused such public anger. Let's stop being hoodwinked by the MP's/Lords propaganda that it is tradition/constituti

nal and should not be changed, the current political system is costing us too much money, so to use the 'Tory' motto let us have value for money and to my way of thinking a British constitution that we the people actually have a say and vote on. Why is Britain the only major country in Europe that has never given it's people the right to vote on it's own constitution? What are MP's and in the context of the article Councillors affraid of? That we might actually find out what they are getting up to, supposedly in our name and for our good? That does not mean I am advocating removing the Monarchy, the main thrust of my point is that MP's, Councillors and Mayors should work for and serve us not themselves.
Therefore things like the public right to sack an MP's should be enshrined in that new constitution as indeed should our right to vote on EU legislation. The MP's cannot be trusted to sign these agreements on the EU on our behalf, we need to know what they are planning to sign and vote on it ourselves before the Nation is locked in and if this had been done in the past we would not be in this sorry state where Brussels has as much control on our daily life as it does and waves of immigration on the scale we have seen might never have happened. I am not anti- immigration but we should have had the right to limit the numbers, so they do not upset our way of life by contributing the the current housing shortage crisis by making that crisis even worse, the shortage of school places and the cost of teaching some of these children and indeed people to speak English from which ever part of the world they come from. Should foreign nationals with serious criminal records be let in or more importantly be let out of their country of birth? So in the case of the Worcester Mayor, the people should have the right to pick and chose candidates and have the right to remove them and in my opinion Mr Amos should resign the Mayoral post and a set of candidates be ideally nominated by the public so the City chooses it's Mayor. Furthermore there should be a by-election in his ward so we can find out if the electorate that voted voted for him or his party. If he again wins the vote then he could stand as a Mayoral candidate.
Sorry for the long winded rant but this sort of distasteful political episode really annoys me and has a distinct smell to it!
If you move to Worcester you better start using paragraphs.
Don't know about Kent but paragraphs are 'de rigueur' round here, like,
[quote][p][bold]Kent supporter[/bold] wrote: As an outsider looking to move to Worcester, I find this whole Mayoral debarcle indicative of what is wrong with British politics and why ever decreasing numbers of people bother to vote. The whole system needs a complete overhaul as in it's current form it is self serving for these career politicians. Why does this country need in excess of 600 MP's. If America can survive with 200 Senators for a population of around seven times that of the U.K? Why do we need more? There are rumours that the 'Houses of Parliament' will need repairs of around four billion pounds and probably more knowing the track record of Westminster to sign ridiculous contracts that either don't work or end up costing significantly more. Lovely and historic building though that is, in these austere times when we are all being asked to tighten our belts again and again, can we really justify such a cost? As a nation we are allegedly paying a billion pounds each week just to pay for the interest on our national debt, a debt by the way I have heard that has increased between a third and half since the Coalition Government took over! Indeed why are so many of the Government departments in London, why are they not spread around the U.K. into areas of high unemployment and where building and land values are lower. The cost of such moves would be high but should be more than covered by the cost from the sale of the London properties and who knows free up land for much needed affordable housing in London, rather than expensive homes for rich foreigners with in some cases dubiously attained huge wealth that successive Governments and Mayor Boris Johnson seems to favour. I even question in these days of technology why there really needs to be a full Parliament building, why cannot the elected members of parliament have video links from their constituencies instead which would save on all the ridiculous travel and accommodation expenses, they could then have cabinet meets in an altogether smaller room/building say in the NEC and perhaps hire out venues a couple of times a year at different locations around the country for full MP debates so there are opportunities for members of the public to watch proceedings instead of things being so London centric. With a more modern approach we could pay the lesser number of MP's a better salary i.e. more than many Council leaders award themselves and dispense with the personal MP expenses that have caused such public anger. Let's stop being hoodwinked by the MP's/Lords propaganda that it is tradition/constituti nal and should not be changed, the current political system is costing us too much money, so to use the 'Tory' motto let us have value for money and to my way of thinking a British constitution that we the people actually have a say and vote on. Why is Britain the only major country in Europe that has never given it's people the right to vote on it's own constitution? What are MP's and in the context of the article Councillors affraid of? That we might actually find out what they are getting up to, supposedly in our name and for our good? That does not mean I am advocating removing the Monarchy, the main thrust of my point is that MP's, Councillors and Mayors should work for and serve us not themselves. Therefore things like the public right to sack an MP's should be enshrined in that new constitution as indeed should our right to vote on EU legislation. The MP's cannot be trusted to sign these agreements on the EU on our behalf, we need to know what they are planning to sign and vote on it ourselves before the Nation is locked in and if this had been done in the past we would not be in this sorry state where Brussels has as much control on our daily life as it does and waves of immigration on the scale we have seen might never have happened. I am not anti- immigration but we should have had the right to limit the numbers, so they do not upset our way of life by contributing the the current housing shortage crisis by making that crisis even worse, the shortage of school places and the cost of teaching some of these children and indeed people to speak English from which ever part of the world they come from. Should foreign nationals with serious criminal records be let in or more importantly be let out of their country of birth? So in the case of the Worcester Mayor, the people should have the right to pick and chose candidates and have the right to remove them and in my opinion Mr Amos should resign the Mayoral post and a set of candidates be ideally nominated by the public so the City chooses it's Mayor. Furthermore there should be a by-election in his ward so we can find out if the electorate that voted voted for him or his party. If he again wins the vote then he could stand as a Mayoral candidate. Sorry for the long winded rant but this sort of distasteful political episode really annoys me and has a distinct smell to it![/p][/quote]If you move to Worcester you better start using paragraphs. Don't know about Kent but paragraphs are 'de rigueur' round here, like, brooksider
  • Score: 2

5:51pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Worcester Lad says...

Last Friday Cllr Alan Amos rang up Labour councillors to say the party had "24 hours" to make him their deputy mayor candidate or he would walk

- Incredibly, Councillor Jabba Riaz then offered to step aside as deputy mayor for the sake of 'harmony in the party', but Cllr Amos quit anyway




- The Tories had already decided that Councillor Roger Knight would be their candidate for the Mayor of Worcester, but they later told him it would be Cllr Amos after private talks with the 'independent'

- Councillor Simon Geraghty, new city council leader, brokered the talks with Cllr Amos and said he saw it as "an ideal solution" for the council
Last Friday Cllr Alan Amos rang up Labour councillors to say the party had "24 hours" to make him their deputy mayor candidate or he would walk - Incredibly, Councillor Jabba Riaz then offered to step aside as deputy mayor for the sake of 'harmony in the party', but Cllr Amos quit anyway - The Tories had already decided that Councillor Roger Knight would be their candidate for the Mayor of Worcester, but they later told him it would be Cllr Amos after private talks with the 'independent' - Councillor Simon Geraghty, new city council leader, brokered the talks with Cllr Amos and said he saw it as "an ideal solution" for the council Worcester Lad
  • Score: 7

6:32pm Fri 6 Jun 14

The Villan says...

For goodness sake just get the elected councillors to force a 'no confidence motion'. I'm sure there are a few Conservative's who are secretly embarrassed by this too!
For goodness sake just get the elected councillors to force a 'no confidence motion'. I'm sure there are a few Conservative's who are secretly embarrassed by this too! The Villan
  • Score: 8

8:37pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

SIgn the petition / share on Twitter and Facebook.
http://ipt.io/rvud
SIgn the petition / share on Twitter and Facebook. http://ipt.io/rvud Ted Elgar
  • Score: 4

9:11pm Fri 6 Jun 14

3thinker says...

Worcester Lad wrote:
Last Friday Cllr Alan Amos rang up Labour councillors to say the party had "24 hours" to make him their deputy mayor candidate or he would walk

- Incredibly, Councillor Jabba Riaz then offered to step aside as deputy mayor for the sake of 'harmony in the party', but Cllr Amos quit anyway




- The Tories had already decided that Councillor Roger Knight would be their candidate for the Mayor of Worcester, but they later told him it would be Cllr Amos after private talks with the 'independent'

- Councillor Simon Geraghty, new city council leader, brokered the talks with Cllr Amos and said he saw it as "an ideal solution" for the council
Yep.

"Ideal solution" for Amos. And "Ideal solution" for Geraghty.

They both get what they want and at great cost to others and at the same time prove that some politicians have no moral fibre.

This isn't and shouldn't be about party politicking. Its about individual integrity and knowing what is acceptable.
[quote][p][bold]Worcester Lad[/bold] wrote: Last Friday Cllr Alan Amos rang up Labour councillors to say the party had "24 hours" to make him their deputy mayor candidate or he would walk - Incredibly, Councillor Jabba Riaz then offered to step aside as deputy mayor for the sake of 'harmony in the party', but Cllr Amos quit anyway - The Tories had already decided that Councillor Roger Knight would be their candidate for the Mayor of Worcester, but they later told him it would be Cllr Amos after private talks with the 'independent' - Councillor Simon Geraghty, new city council leader, brokered the talks with Cllr Amos and said he saw it as "an ideal solution" for the council[/p][/quote]Yep. "Ideal solution" for Amos. And "Ideal solution" for Geraghty. They both get what they want and at great cost to others and at the same time prove that some politicians have no moral fibre. This isn't and shouldn't be about party politicking. Its about individual integrity and knowing what is acceptable. 3thinker
  • Score: 10

9:21pm Fri 6 Jun 14

rod123 says...

What happens if Worcester get a royal visit in the next twelve months? We now have a mayor who called the Royal Family 'parasites and hypocrites' and the Queen was head of a rotten class ridden, corrupt social and political environment. Gerramos has destroyed the integrity of this city. Take a look at: www.archive.spectato
r.co.uk/article/18th
-january-1997/22/tha
t-night-on-the-heath
What happens if Worcester get a royal visit in the next twelve months? We now have a mayor who called the Royal Family 'parasites and hypocrites' and the Queen was head of a rotten class ridden, corrupt social and political environment. Gerramos has destroyed the integrity of this city. Take a look at: www.archive.spectato r.co.uk/article/18th -january-1997/22/tha t-night-on-the-heath rod123
  • Score: 7

9:54pm Fri 6 Jun 14

ray1111 says...

Worcester Lad wrote:
Last Friday Cllr Alan Amos rang up Labour councillors to say the party had "24 hours" to make him their deputy mayor candidate or he would walk

- Incredibly, Councillor Jabba Riaz then offered to step aside as deputy mayor for the sake of 'harmony in the party', but Cllr Amos quit anyway




- The Tories had already decided that Councillor Roger Knight would be their candidate for the Mayor of Worcester, but they later told him it would be Cllr Amos after private talks with the 'independent'

- Councillor Simon Geraghty, new city council leader, brokered the talks with Cllr Amos and said he saw it as "an ideal solution" for the council
really ...the labour party did not have a clue before the council meeting, smug that they had the lib and green vote...great to the see the self serving smiles taken of their faces.
[quote][p][bold]Worcester Lad[/bold] wrote: Last Friday Cllr Alan Amos rang up Labour councillors to say the party had "24 hours" to make him their deputy mayor candidate or he would walk - Incredibly, Councillor Jabba Riaz then offered to step aside as deputy mayor for the sake of 'harmony in the party', but Cllr Amos quit anyway - The Tories had already decided that Councillor Roger Knight would be their candidate for the Mayor of Worcester, but they later told him it would be Cllr Amos after private talks with the 'independent' - Councillor Simon Geraghty, new city council leader, brokered the talks with Cllr Amos and said he saw it as "an ideal solution" for the council[/p][/quote]really ...the labour party did not have a clue before the council meeting, smug that they had the lib and green vote...great to the see the self serving smiles taken of their faces. ray1111
  • Score: -7

10:01pm Fri 6 Jun 14

GettingBy says...

Marcbayliss wrote:
Jabbadad wrote:
EnorMouse you are quite wrong about the Indepenents Neither Mike Layland nor Margeret Layland were Labour members nor did they Steal by defection any votes entrusted to them while they were Labour Councillors.Qute unlike Bayliss and Amos.
They stood as Independent Councillors and were elected as Independents. Even when they attendedmeetings of The Association of Independents Councillors Stan Knowles, Mike Francis, Margaret Layland, and Mike Layland were totally independent of each other, it was political Utopia. There was no Whip and although Mike Layland was the senior in time served Independent councillor he was not the leader, because there was no Leader. The Association of Independents had a constitution, Bak account, Treasurer, Secretaryand a Life President George Drew and the rest of the members just attended the meetings and did the work in the Wards and at election times.
They were good days to be associated with politics, and no Vote bartering as now, and the Independents had the casting votes for some time in Worcester, and never abused the privalege.
I fear that with Geraghty, Bayliss, Hodgson, Roberts, Mitchell and ( Amos) we have the NEW CONservatives. And what we are seeing is quite scary isn't it?
Remember New Labour?
Dear Brian,

I am afraid you are wrong. Margaret Layland was a Labour councillor who quit the party during her term to sit as an independent the same as Alan Amos has done. She subsequently stood and won as an independent. I know this does not fit with your narrative but best to stick to the facts.

Marc
Hey Marc. Can you explain why the electorate can a see a clear distinction between the behaviour of the Green party member of the council and that of Amos, yet you can't?
[quote][p][bold]Marcbayliss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: EnorMouse you are quite wrong about the Indepenents Neither Mike Layland nor Margeret Layland were Labour members nor did they Steal by defection any votes entrusted to them while they were Labour Councillors.Qute unlike Bayliss and Amos. They stood as Independent Councillors and were elected as Independents. Even when they attendedmeetings of The Association of Independents Councillors Stan Knowles, Mike Francis, Margaret Layland, and Mike Layland were totally independent of each other, it was political Utopia. There was no Whip and although Mike Layland was the senior in time served Independent councillor he was not the leader, because there was no Leader. The Association of Independents had a constitution, Bak account, Treasurer, Secretaryand a Life President George Drew and the rest of the members just attended the meetings and did the work in the Wards and at election times. They were good days to be associated with politics, and no Vote bartering as now, and the Independents had the casting votes for some time in Worcester, and never abused the privalege. I fear that with Geraghty, Bayliss, Hodgson, Roberts, Mitchell and ( Amos) we have the NEW CONservatives. And what we are seeing is quite scary isn't it? Remember New Labour?[/p][/quote]Dear Brian, I am afraid you are wrong. Margaret Layland was a Labour councillor who quit the party during her term to sit as an independent the same as Alan Amos has done. She subsequently stood and won as an independent. I know this does not fit with your narrative but best to stick to the facts. Marc[/p][/quote]Hey Marc. Can you explain why the electorate can a see a clear distinction between the behaviour of the Green party member of the council and that of Amos, yet you can't? GettingBy
  • Score: 6

10:10pm Fri 6 Jun 14

3thinker says...

GettingBy wrote:
Marcbayliss wrote:
Jabbadad wrote:
EnorMouse you are quite wrong about the Indepenents Neither Mike Layland nor Margeret Layland were Labour members nor did they Steal by defection any votes entrusted to them while they were Labour Councillors.Qute unlike Bayliss and Amos.
They stood as Independent Councillors and were elected as Independents. Even when they attendedmeetings of The Association of Independents Councillors Stan Knowles, Mike Francis, Margaret Layland, and Mike Layland were totally independent of each other, it was political Utopia. There was no Whip and although Mike Layland was the senior in time served Independent councillor he was not the leader, because there was no Leader. The Association of Independents had a constitution, Bak account, Treasurer, Secretaryand a Life President George Drew and the rest of the members just attended the meetings and did the work in the Wards and at election times.
They were good days to be associated with politics, and no Vote bartering as now, and the Independents had the casting votes for some time in Worcester, and never abused the privalege.
I fear that with Geraghty, Bayliss, Hodgson, Roberts, Mitchell and ( Amos) we have the NEW CONservatives. And what we are seeing is quite scary isn't it?
Remember New Labour?
Dear Brian,

I am afraid you are wrong. Margaret Layland was a Labour councillor who quit the party during her term to sit as an independent the same as Alan Amos has done. She subsequently stood and won as an independent. I know this does not fit with your narrative but best to stick to the facts.

Marc
Hey Marc. Can you explain why the electorate can a see a clear distinction between the behaviour of the Green party member of the council and that of Amos, yet you can't?
Oh and Marc. How come you slagged off Jabba Riaz when he switched parties when you did exactly the same thing only a couple of years before.

And how come you supported Geragthty in their sordid deal and ditched Cllr Knight as your candidate for Mayor.

And perhaps you like to explain to the good people of Worcester why you personally don't see anything wrong in what Amos has done and the deal that you and Simon have been a party to.
[quote][p][bold]GettingBy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marcbayliss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: EnorMouse you are quite wrong about the Indepenents Neither Mike Layland nor Margeret Layland were Labour members nor did they Steal by defection any votes entrusted to them while they were Labour Councillors.Qute unlike Bayliss and Amos. They stood as Independent Councillors and were elected as Independents. Even when they attendedmeetings of The Association of Independents Councillors Stan Knowles, Mike Francis, Margaret Layland, and Mike Layland were totally independent of each other, it was political Utopia. There was no Whip and although Mike Layland was the senior in time served Independent councillor he was not the leader, because there was no Leader. The Association of Independents had a constitution, Bak account, Treasurer, Secretaryand a Life President George Drew and the rest of the members just attended the meetings and did the work in the Wards and at election times. They were good days to be associated with politics, and no Vote bartering as now, and the Independents had the casting votes for some time in Worcester, and never abused the privalege. I fear that with Geraghty, Bayliss, Hodgson, Roberts, Mitchell and ( Amos) we have the NEW CONservatives. And what we are seeing is quite scary isn't it? Remember New Labour?[/p][/quote]Dear Brian, I am afraid you are wrong. Margaret Layland was a Labour councillor who quit the party during her term to sit as an independent the same as Alan Amos has done. She subsequently stood and won as an independent. I know this does not fit with your narrative but best to stick to the facts. Marc[/p][/quote]Hey Marc. Can you explain why the electorate can a see a clear distinction between the behaviour of the Green party member of the council and that of Amos, yet you can't?[/p][/quote]Oh and Marc. How come you slagged off Jabba Riaz when he switched parties when you did exactly the same thing only a couple of years before. And how come you supported Geragthty in their sordid deal and ditched Cllr Knight as your candidate for Mayor. And perhaps you like to explain to the good people of Worcester why you personally don't see anything wrong in what Amos has done and the deal that you and Simon have been a party to. 3thinker
  • Score: 16

10:12pm Fri 6 Jun 14

3thinker says...

Amos refuses to comment on the dirty dealings he did with Geraghty to become mayor.

Quite surprising given his strident views on them and the 'establishment' which I assume includes the pomp and ceremony that surround mayoral office.

'The Establishment', he says, is `corrupt' because its only interest is the preservation of its 'privilege and power'. The Tory Party is 'corrupt' because it is controlled by 'the Establishment'. The Tories have destroyed local government by `taking away all its powers'. Tory Party members are 'bigots' because they use `blacks, gays, the disabled' as 'scapegoats for society's ills'. 'Discrimination' against such groups is rife. The police are 'corrupt' as well. But he emphasised: 'I am not bit- ter, I am angry.'
Amos refuses to comment on the dirty dealings he did with Geraghty to become mayor. Quite surprising given his strident views on them and the 'establishment' which I assume includes the pomp and ceremony that surround mayoral office. 'The Establishment', he says, is `corrupt' because its only interest is the preservation of its 'privilege and power'. The Tory Party is 'corrupt' because it is controlled by 'the Establishment'. The Tories have destroyed local government by `taking away all its powers'. Tory Party members are 'bigots' because they use `blacks, gays, the disabled' as 'scapegoats for society's ills'. 'Discrimination' against such groups is rife. The police are 'corrupt' as well. But he emphasised: 'I am not bit- ter, I am angry.' 3thinker
  • Score: 9

8:59am Sun 8 Jun 14

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

Amos has had so many "roads to Damasacus" I think he has lost his way - perhaps he won't be able to find his way back to Worcester after his holiday! I for one do not want this man to represent Worcester - and Amos the comments being made on the petition are not anonymous postings on the web, they are made by people who are disgusted with your actions.. As someone who is a chair of a charity I would not like it to be associated with Amos!
Amos has had so many "roads to Damasacus" I think he has lost his way - perhaps he won't be able to find his way back to Worcester after his holiday! I for one do not want this man to represent Worcester - and Amos the comments being made on the petition are not anonymous postings on the web, they are made by people who are disgusted with your actions.. As someone who is a chair of a charity I would not like it to be associated with Amos! imustbeoldiwearacap
  • Score: 7

10:36am Sun 8 Jun 14

Jabbadad says...

What is as fearfull as the political deception over all of this is that, a) all the CONservatives must have been aware of the backroom talks and deals precceding the full council meeting since there was not one look of suprise but smirks of delight from them all. And b), what Amos has done is betrayed the Vulnerable and Older People by putting the CONservatives back in power where they can resume THEIR cuts to older peoples services.
So sadly I have to say to ALL that still vote CONservative in the knowledge of the new face of CONservatism SHAME ON YOU.
What is as fearfull as the political deception over all of this is that, a) all the CONservatives must have been aware of the backroom talks and deals precceding the full council meeting since there was not one look of suprise but smirks of delight from them all. And b), what Amos has done is betrayed the Vulnerable and Older People by putting the CONservatives back in power where they can resume THEIR cuts to older peoples services. So sadly I have to say to ALL that still vote CONservative in the knowledge of the new face of CONservatism SHAME ON YOU. Jabbadad
  • Score: 1

11:34am Sun 8 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

Jabbadad wrote:
What is as fearfull as the political deception over all of this is that, a) all the CONservatives must have been aware of the backroom talks and deals precceding the full council meeting since there was not one look of suprise but smirks of delight from them all. And b), what Amos has done is betrayed the Vulnerable and Older People by putting the CONservatives back in power where they can resume THEIR cuts to older peoples services.
So sadly I have to say to ALL that still vote CONservative in the knowledge of the new face of CONservatism SHAME ON YOU.
Nice bit of propaganda - won't bother to ask you to justify anything with facts, however I would remind you that the Conservatives were the largest group on the Council, both before and after Councillor Amos's decision and had the largest share of the popular vote in the 2014 local elections by a good 4% and even beat Labour in the Worcester count for the European Elections. All this at a time in the national government cycle when the opposition is normally riding high and the government is at a low point.

Accordingly, shame on Labour for trying to hang onto power, rather than acceding to the wishes of the people.
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: What is as fearfull as the political deception over all of this is that, a) all the CONservatives must have been aware of the backroom talks and deals precceding the full council meeting since there was not one look of suprise but smirks of delight from them all. And b), what Amos has done is betrayed the Vulnerable and Older People by putting the CONservatives back in power where they can resume THEIR cuts to older peoples services. So sadly I have to say to ALL that still vote CONservative in the knowledge of the new face of CONservatism SHAME ON YOU.[/p][/quote]Nice bit of propaganda - won't bother to ask you to justify anything with facts, however I would remind you that the Conservatives were the largest group on the Council, both before and after Councillor Amos's decision and had the largest share of the popular vote in the 2014 local elections by a good 4% and even beat Labour in the Worcester count for the European Elections. All this at a time in the national government cycle when the opposition is normally riding high and the government is at a low point. Accordingly, shame on Labour for trying to hang onto power, rather than acceding to the wishes of the people. EnorMouse
  • Score: -4

11:41am Sun 8 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
Amos has had so many "roads to Damasacus" I think he has lost his way - perhaps he won't be able to find his way back to Worcester after his holiday! I for one do not want this man to represent Worcester - and Amos the comments being made on the petition are not anonymous postings on the web, they are made by people who are disgusted with your actions.. As someone who is a chair of a charity I would not like it to be associated with Amos!
Interesting - you seem to be saying that you would like to see your opinion of Councillor Amos put ahead of the interests of the charity that you chair. If this is the case, I really think that you should consider stepping down and let someone who puts the interests of the charity first take over.
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: Amos has had so many "roads to Damasacus" I think he has lost his way - perhaps he won't be able to find his way back to Worcester after his holiday! I for one do not want this man to represent Worcester - and Amos the comments being made on the petition are not anonymous postings on the web, they are made by people who are disgusted with your actions.. As someone who is a chair of a charity I would not like it to be associated with Amos![/p][/quote]Interesting - you seem to be saying that you would like to see your opinion of Councillor Amos put ahead of the interests of the charity that you chair. If this is the case, I really think that you should consider stepping down and let someone who puts the interests of the charity first take over. EnorMouse
  • Score: -8

11:59am Sun 8 Jun 14

nicki1967 says...

I've not read all the comments as there's just too many. Alan Amos-man of the people though?! Gets his own way by scoring the most important job in our city and buggers off on holiday. That's some caring about the city and it's inhabitants isn't it. W*****!
I've not read all the comments as there's just too many. Alan Amos-man of the people though?! Gets his own way by scoring the most important job in our city and buggers off on holiday. That's some caring about the city and it's inhabitants isn't it. W*****! nicki1967
  • Score: 13

12:02pm Sun 8 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

3thinker wrote:
GettingBy wrote:
Marcbayliss wrote:
Jabbadad wrote:
EnorMouse you are quite wrong about the Indepenents Neither Mike Layland nor Margeret Layland were Labour members nor did they Steal by defection any votes entrusted to them while they were Labour Councillors.Qute unlike Bayliss and Amos.
They stood as Independent Councillors and were elected as Independents. Even when they attendedmeetings of The Association of Independents Councillors Stan Knowles, Mike Francis, Margaret Layland, and Mike Layland were totally independent of each other, it was political Utopia. There was no Whip and although Mike Layland was the senior in time served Independent councillor he was not the leader, because there was no Leader. The Association of Independents had a constitution, Bak account, Treasurer, Secretaryand a Life President George Drew and the rest of the members just attended the meetings and did the work in the Wards and at election times.
They were good days to be associated with politics, and no Vote bartering as now, and the Independents had the casting votes for some time in Worcester, and never abused the privalege.
I fear that with Geraghty, Bayliss, Hodgson, Roberts, Mitchell and ( Amos) we have the NEW CONservatives. And what we are seeing is quite scary isn't it?
Remember New Labour?
Dear Brian,

I am afraid you are wrong. Margaret Layland was a Labour councillor who quit the party during her term to sit as an independent the same as Alan Amos has done. She subsequently stood and won as an independent. I know this does not fit with your narrative but best to stick to the facts.

Marc
Hey Marc. Can you explain why the electorate can a see a clear distinction between the behaviour of the Green party member of the council and that of Amos, yet you can't?
Oh and Marc. How come you slagged off Jabba Riaz when he switched parties when you did exactly the same thing only a couple of years before.

And how come you supported Geragthty in their sordid deal and ditched Cllr Knight as your candidate for Mayor.

And perhaps you like to explain to the good people of Worcester why you personally don't see anything wrong in what Amos has done and the deal that you and Simon have been a party to.
3thinker wrote:

And how come you supported Geragthty in their sordid deal and ditched Cllr Knight as your candidate for Mayor.

And perhaps you like to explain to the good people of Worcester why you personally don't see anything wrong in what Amos has done and the deal that you and Simon have been a party to.


I find it interesting that the Labour Group were willing to enter into policy compromises with the lone representatives of the LibDems and the Greens in order to thwart the wishes of the electorate and yet seek to belittle Councillor Geraghty for simply giving up the Conservative Group's right to the Mayoralty in order to gain the control of the Council, which was rightfully theirs.

It is one thing to have a go at Councillor Amos - I have no intention of fighting his corner for him, but the Conservatives, lead by Councillor Geraghty, were the single largest group on the Council and were the clear winners of the popular vote.
[quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GettingBy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marcbayliss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: EnorMouse you are quite wrong about the Indepenents Neither Mike Layland nor Margeret Layland were Labour members nor did they Steal by defection any votes entrusted to them while they were Labour Councillors.Qute unlike Bayliss and Amos. They stood as Independent Councillors and were elected as Independents. Even when they attendedmeetings of The Association of Independents Councillors Stan Knowles, Mike Francis, Margaret Layland, and Mike Layland were totally independent of each other, it was political Utopia. There was no Whip and although Mike Layland was the senior in time served Independent councillor he was not the leader, because there was no Leader. The Association of Independents had a constitution, Bak account, Treasurer, Secretaryand a Life President George Drew and the rest of the members just attended the meetings and did the work in the Wards and at election times. They were good days to be associated with politics, and no Vote bartering as now, and the Independents had the casting votes for some time in Worcester, and never abused the privalege. I fear that with Geraghty, Bayliss, Hodgson, Roberts, Mitchell and ( Amos) we have the NEW CONservatives. And what we are seeing is quite scary isn't it? Remember New Labour?[/p][/quote]Dear Brian, I am afraid you are wrong. Margaret Layland was a Labour councillor who quit the party during her term to sit as an independent the same as Alan Amos has done. She subsequently stood and won as an independent. I know this does not fit with your narrative but best to stick to the facts. Marc[/p][/quote]Hey Marc. Can you explain why the electorate can a see a clear distinction between the behaviour of the Green party member of the council and that of Amos, yet you can't?[/p][/quote]Oh and Marc. How come you slagged off Jabba Riaz when he switched parties when you did exactly the same thing only a couple of years before. And how come you supported Geragthty in their sordid deal and ditched Cllr Knight as your candidate for Mayor. And perhaps you like to explain to the good people of Worcester why you personally don't see anything wrong in what Amos has done and the deal that you and Simon have been a party to.[/p][/quote][quote][p][bold]3thinker[/bold] wrote: And how come you supported Geragthty in their sordid deal and ditched Cllr Knight as your candidate for Mayor. And perhaps you like to explain to the good people of Worcester why you personally don't see anything wrong in what Amos has done and the deal that you and Simon have been a party to.[/p][/quote] I find it interesting that the Labour Group were willing to enter into policy compromises with the lone representatives of the LibDems and the Greens in order to thwart the wishes of the electorate and yet seek to belittle Councillor Geraghty for simply giving up the Conservative Group's right to the Mayoralty in order to gain the control of the Council, which was rightfully theirs. It is one thing to have a go at Councillor Amos - I have no intention of fighting his corner for him, but the Conservatives, lead by Councillor Geraghty, were the single largest group on the Council and were the clear winners of the popular vote. EnorMouse
  • Score: -8

12:16pm Sun 8 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

nicki1967 wrote:
I've not read all the comments as there's just too many. Alan Amos-man of the people though?! Gets his own way by scoring the most important job in our city and buggers off on holiday. That's some caring about the city and it's inhabitants isn't it. W*****!
Being Mayor is not the most important job in the city. It is not even the most important job in the Council or even the most important job amongst the elected Councillors - the latter goes to the Leader of the Council.

The Mayor is simply the symbolic civic leader of the City, all be it that he has a casting vote in the event of a tie in the Council.

As for going on holiday at this moment in time, what exactly is there for him to be doing that he can not subsequently catch up on?
[quote][p][bold]nicki1967[/bold] wrote: I've not read all the comments as there's just too many. Alan Amos-man of the people though?! Gets his own way by scoring the most important job in our city and buggers off on holiday. That's some caring about the city and it's inhabitants isn't it. W*****![/p][/quote]Being Mayor is not the most important job in the city. It is not even the most important job in the Council or even the most important job amongst the elected Councillors - the latter goes to the Leader of the Council. The Mayor is simply the symbolic civic leader of the City, all be it that he has a casting vote in the event of a tie in the Council. As for going on holiday at this moment in time, what exactly is there for him to be doing that he can not subsequently catch up on? EnorMouse
  • Score: -7

1:22pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Jabbadad says...

Enormouse at this moment the position of Mayor and his casting vote which he has already used to elect the CONservatives back in, and then other positions for the CONservatives to again be in Payment for, is almost the most important vote equal to the Green and Lib Dem vote, who still have an important role to play.
It's obvious and SAD that you appear a CONservative voter and obviously feel the Slash & Burn policies of the Vulnerable and Older people of Worcester and Worcestershire services by Geraghty & the CONservative Possee are ok then?
Enormouse at this moment the position of Mayor and his casting vote which he has already used to elect the CONservatives back in, and then other positions for the CONservatives to again be in Payment for, is almost the most important vote equal to the Green and Lib Dem vote, who still have an important role to play. It's obvious and SAD that you appear a CONservative voter and obviously feel the Slash & Burn policies of the Vulnerable and Older people of Worcester and Worcestershire services by Geraghty & the CONservative Possee are ok then? Jabbadad
  • Score: 4

2:27pm Sun 8 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

Jabbadad wrote:
Enormouse at this moment the position of Mayor and his casting vote which he has already used to elect the CONservatives back in, and then other positions for the CONservatives to again be in Payment for, is almost the most important vote equal to the Green and Lib Dem vote, who still have an important role to play.
It's obvious and SAD that you appear a CONservative voter and obviously feel the Slash & Burn policies of the Vulnerable and Older people of Worcester and Worcestershire services by Geraghty & the CONservative Possee are ok then?
As far as I am aware, the Mayor has not used his casting vote. There are 35 elected Councillors, so the issue of a casting vote would only apply if one or more of them were absent. The independent Mayor is using his first vote to add to the 17 Conservative ones, to give an absolute majority over the 15 Labour, 1 LibDem and 1 Green. His casting vote does not come into play.

Clearly if there are any issues on which Councillor Amos feels strongly, then he could always give his support to the Labour/LibDem/Green block. He has not accepted the Conservative whip although clearly has decided that the City is better run with a Conservative administration. I can not say that I blame him for this enlightened decision.

Given that this is the case, I would have thought that the better tactic for Labour would have been to simply regret Councillor Amos leaving their Group and seek his support for specific issues, thereby justifying his position as an Independent. The level of personal animosity aimed at him by his former colleagues is likely to drive him further into the Conservative fold.
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: Enormouse at this moment the position of Mayor and his casting vote which he has already used to elect the CONservatives back in, and then other positions for the CONservatives to again be in Payment for, is almost the most important vote equal to the Green and Lib Dem vote, who still have an important role to play. It's obvious and SAD that you appear a CONservative voter and obviously feel the Slash & Burn policies of the Vulnerable and Older people of Worcester and Worcestershire services by Geraghty & the CONservative Possee are ok then?[/p][/quote]As far as I am aware, the Mayor has not used his casting vote. There are 35 elected Councillors, so the issue of a casting vote would only apply if one or more of them were absent. The independent Mayor is using his first vote to add to the 17 Conservative ones, to give an absolute majority over the 15 Labour, 1 LibDem and 1 Green. His casting vote does not come into play. Clearly if there are any issues on which Councillor Amos feels strongly, then he could always give his support to the Labour/LibDem/Green block. He has not accepted the Conservative whip although clearly has decided that the City is better run with a Conservative administration. I can not say that I blame him for this enlightened decision. Given that this is the case, I would have thought that the better tactic for Labour would have been to simply regret Councillor Amos leaving their Group and seek his support for specific issues, thereby justifying his position as an Independent. The level of personal animosity aimed at him by his former colleagues is likely to drive him further into the Conservative fold. EnorMouse
  • Score: -3

7:33pm Sun 8 Jun 14

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

EnorMouse wrote:
imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
Amos has had so many "roads to Damasacus" I think he has lost his way - perhaps he won't be able to find his way back to Worcester after his holiday! I for one do not want this man to represent Worcester - and Amos the comments being made on the petition are not anonymous postings on the web, they are made by people who are disgusted with your actions.. As someone who is a chair of a charity I would not like it to be associated with Amos!
Interesting - you seem to be saying that you would like to see your opinion of Councillor Amos put ahead of the interests of the charity that you chair. If this is the case, I really think that you should consider stepping down and let someone who puts the interests of the charity first take over.
What a sanctimonious response! I am putting the interests of the charity first - if we were to associate with the likes of Amos - we would lose many of our supporters who would cease to give, rather than be associated with a man with no moral compass!
[quote][p][bold]EnorMouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: Amos has had so many "roads to Damasacus" I think he has lost his way - perhaps he won't be able to find his way back to Worcester after his holiday! I for one do not want this man to represent Worcester - and Amos the comments being made on the petition are not anonymous postings on the web, they are made by people who are disgusted with your actions.. As someone who is a chair of a charity I would not like it to be associated with Amos![/p][/quote]Interesting - you seem to be saying that you would like to see your opinion of Councillor Amos put ahead of the interests of the charity that you chair. If this is the case, I really think that you should consider stepping down and let someone who puts the interests of the charity first take over.[/p][/quote]What a sanctimonious response! I am putting the interests of the charity first - if we were to associate with the likes of Amos - we would lose many of our supporters who would cease to give, rather than be associated with a man with no moral compass! imustbeoldiwearacap
  • Score: 9

9:35pm Sun 8 Jun 14

3thinker says...

EnorMouse wrote:
imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
Amos has had so many "roads to Damasacus" I think he has lost his way - perhaps he won't be able to find his way back to Worcester after his holiday! I for one do not want this man to represent Worcester - and Amos the comments being made on the petition are not anonymous postings on the web, they are made by people who are disgusted with your actions.. As someone who is a chair of a charity I would not like it to be associated with Amos!
Interesting - you seem to be saying that you would like to see your opinion of Councillor Amos put ahead of the interests of the charity that you chair. If this is the case, I really think that you should consider stepping down and let someone who puts the interests of the charity first take over.
EnorMouse

Imustbeoldwearacap is right to be concerned. Have a look at comments made on the post about the Burmese speaker at the Amnesty International event.

Alan Amos turns up and so strong are the feelings about his personal unprincipled actions (and these have been from all part s of the community including Conservative voters such as myself) that the main focus and message the charity was trying to get over are lost due to the focus being about our new Mayor.

A Mayor is supposed to be able to bring the community together and promote the good works being done by people within the local community. What he has done makes this all but impossible.

If I was working for a charity or for that matter any other organisation I'd think twice about inviting him to any event as there is a very real danger that it would at best mean the messages they are trying to get over get lost in the controversy or at worst his attendance reflects badly on the organisers.
[quote][p][bold]EnorMouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: Amos has had so many "roads to Damasacus" I think he has lost his way - perhaps he won't be able to find his way back to Worcester after his holiday! I for one do not want this man to represent Worcester - and Amos the comments being made on the petition are not anonymous postings on the web, they are made by people who are disgusted with your actions.. As someone who is a chair of a charity I would not like it to be associated with Amos![/p][/quote]Interesting - you seem to be saying that you would like to see your opinion of Councillor Amos put ahead of the interests of the charity that you chair. If this is the case, I really think that you should consider stepping down and let someone who puts the interests of the charity first take over.[/p][/quote]EnorMouse Imustbeoldwearacap is right to be concerned. Have a look at comments made on the post about the Burmese speaker at the Amnesty International event. Alan Amos turns up and so strong are the feelings about his personal unprincipled actions (and these have been from all part s of the community including Conservative voters such as myself) that the main focus and message the charity was trying to get over are lost due to the focus being about our new Mayor. A Mayor is supposed to be able to bring the community together and promote the good works being done by people within the local community. What he has done makes this all but impossible. If I was working for a charity or for that matter any other organisation I'd think twice about inviting him to any event as there is a very real danger that it would at best mean the messages they are trying to get over get lost in the controversy or at worst his attendance reflects badly on the organisers. 3thinker
  • Score: 10

10:31pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

"He has not accepted the Conservative whip although clearly has decided that the City is better run with a Conservative administration. "

He has, personally, decided that the City would be better off with a Conservative administration.
"Better off" assumes that the electorate of Worcester don't know what's good for them and that the self-proclaimed City Fathers know best. It's patronising; it's 'pat-them-on-the-hea
d'.

http://ipt.io/rvud
"He has not accepted the Conservative whip although clearly has decided that the City is better run with a Conservative administration. " He has, personally, decided that the City would be better off with a Conservative administration. "Better off" assumes that the electorate of Worcester don't know what's good for them and that the self-proclaimed City Fathers know best. It's patronising; it's 'pat-them-on-the-hea d'. http://ipt.io/rvud Ted Elgar
  • Score: 4

11:29pm Sun 8 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

Ted Elgar wrote:
"He has not accepted the Conservative whip although clearly has decided that the City is better run with a Conservative administration. "

He has, personally, decided that the City would be better off with a Conservative administration.
"Better off" assumes that the electorate of Worcester don't know what's good for them and that the self-proclaimed City Fathers know best. It's patronising; it's 'pat-them-on-the-hea

d'.

http://ipt.io/rvud
Except of course that the electorate of Worcester have decided to make the Conservatives the largest group on the Council, given the Conservatives the largest share of the vote in the local elections, gave the Conservatives a larger share of the vote than Labour in the European elections and of course elected a Conservative MP last time around.

What is patronising is for Labour supporters to think that they have some monopoly on the moral high ground and caring about others and accordingly that anyone who stands in their way or wants to do something differently is naturally in the wrong.

Labour did not win and their attempts to hang onto power were just as murky as what Councillor Amos got up to. As to why the Green Party felt they had a right to impose their agenda on Worcester, when they had been so widely rejected by the electorate is another matter entirely. At least Councillor Amos saved us from that.
[quote][p][bold]Ted Elgar[/bold] wrote: "He has not accepted the Conservative whip although clearly has decided that the City is better run with a Conservative administration. " He has, personally, decided that the City would be better off with a Conservative administration. "Better off" assumes that the electorate of Worcester don't know what's good for them and that the self-proclaimed City Fathers know best. It's patronising; it's 'pat-them-on-the-hea d'. http://ipt.io/rvud[/p][/quote]Except of course that the electorate of Worcester have decided to make the Conservatives the largest group on the Council, given the Conservatives the largest share of the vote in the local elections, gave the Conservatives a larger share of the vote than Labour in the European elections and of course elected a Conservative MP last time around. What is patronising is for Labour supporters to think that they have some monopoly on the moral high ground and caring about others and accordingly that anyone who stands in their way or wants to do something differently is naturally in the wrong. Labour did not win and their attempts to hang onto power were just as murky as what Councillor Amos got up to. As to why the Green Party felt they had a right to impose their agenda on Worcester, when they had been so widely rejected by the electorate is another matter entirely. At least Councillor Amos saved us from that. EnorMouse
  • Score: -6

11:30pm Sun 8 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
EnorMouse wrote:
imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
Amos has had so many "roads to Damasacus" I think he has lost his way - perhaps he won't be able to find his way back to Worcester after his holiday! I for one do not want this man to represent Worcester - and Amos the comments being made on the petition are not anonymous postings on the web, they are made by people who are disgusted with your actions.. As someone who is a chair of a charity I would not like it to be associated with Amos!
Interesting - you seem to be saying that you would like to see your opinion of Councillor Amos put ahead of the interests of the charity that you chair. If this is the case, I really think that you should consider stepping down and let someone who puts the interests of the charity first take over.
What a sanctimonious response! I am putting the interests of the charity first - if we were to associate with the likes of Amos - we would lose many of our supporters who would cease to give, rather than be associated with a man with no moral compass!
If the cap fits .......
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EnorMouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: Amos has had so many "roads to Damasacus" I think he has lost his way - perhaps he won't be able to find his way back to Worcester after his holiday! I for one do not want this man to represent Worcester - and Amos the comments being made on the petition are not anonymous postings on the web, they are made by people who are disgusted with your actions.. As someone who is a chair of a charity I would not like it to be associated with Amos![/p][/quote]Interesting - you seem to be saying that you would like to see your opinion of Councillor Amos put ahead of the interests of the charity that you chair. If this is the case, I really think that you should consider stepping down and let someone who puts the interests of the charity first take over.[/p][/quote]What a sanctimonious response! I am putting the interests of the charity first - if we were to associate with the likes of Amos - we would lose many of our supporters who would cease to give, rather than be associated with a man with no moral compass![/p][/quote]If the cap fits ....... EnorMouse
  • Score: -4

7:39am Mon 9 Jun 14

marthajones says...

A great shame and travesty , this man has not an ounce of decency, he has brought this office into disrepute and doesn't even care. The power hungry Conservatives , desperate to get into power, have fallen for the deviousness of Bayliss who is the real culprit here , asking about City political balances at County hall days before the meeting ? "Honest gov there was no plan it just miraculously happened?" . I feel sorry for the rest of the Tory group some of them are really good people, but they have inadvertently brought this shameful saga upon them selves by letting a disgruntled Labourite with a personal grudge control everything?. His role is key in all this and now the Tories have seen his true colours. How could the association allow this to happen? As for Allen , he has truly been dumped on the scrap heap, do the decent thing and resign.
A great shame and travesty , this man has not an ounce of decency, he has brought this office into disrepute and doesn't even care. The power hungry Conservatives , desperate to get into power, have fallen for the deviousness of Bayliss who is the real culprit here , asking about City political balances at County hall days before the meeting ? "Honest gov there was no plan it just miraculously happened?" . I feel sorry for the rest of the Tory group some of them are really good people, but they have inadvertently brought this shameful saga upon them selves by letting a disgruntled Labourite with a personal grudge control everything?. His role is key in all this and now the Tories have seen his true colours. How could the association allow this to happen? As for Allen , he has truly been dumped on the scrap heap, do the decent thing and resign. marthajones
  • Score: 7

7:54am Mon 9 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

I'm not a Labour supporter.
I'm just as dismayed with how "murky" the Labour group are, flipping sides when political convenience allows and trading positions authority in back-room deals.
It is time both sides looked carefully at their behaviour and gave the people of Worcester some respect.
I'm not a Labour supporter. I'm just as dismayed with how "murky" the Labour group are, flipping sides when political convenience allows and trading positions authority in back-room deals. It is time both sides looked carefully at their behaviour and gave the people of Worcester some respect. Ted Elgar
  • Score: 4

7:55am Mon 9 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

I'm not a Labour supporter.
I'm just as dismayed with how "murky" the Labour group are, flipping sides when political convenience allows and trading positions of authority in back-room deals.
It is time both sides looked carefully at their behaviour and gave the people of Worcester some respect.
I'm not a Labour supporter. I'm just as dismayed with how "murky" the Labour group are, flipping sides when political convenience allows and trading positions of authority in back-room deals. It is time both sides looked carefully at their behaviour and gave the people of Worcester some respect. Ted Elgar
  • Score: 3

10:36am Mon 9 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

marthajones wrote:
A great shame and travesty , this man has not an ounce of decency, he has brought this office into disrepute and doesn't even care. The power hungry Conservatives , desperate to get into power, have fallen for the deviousness of Bayliss who is the real culprit here , asking about City political balances at County hall days before the meeting ? "Honest gov there was no plan it just miraculously happened?" . I feel sorry for the rest of the Tory group some of them are really good people, but they have inadvertently brought this shameful saga upon them selves by letting a disgruntled Labourite with a personal grudge control everything?. His role is key in all this and now the Tories have seen his true colours. How could the association allow this to happen? As for Allen , he has truly been dumped on the scrap heap, do the decent thing and resign.
In some ways making Councillor Amos the Mayor is a classic example of having the Conservatives in charge of the City. Neither the Conservative Group or the Labour Group had an overall majority. The Conservatives needed to find one more vote and at the time Labour needed two.

The Green Party's lone Councillor, Neil Laurenson, was being absolutely blatant about his willingness to sell his vote and even made public his shopping list of demands. Despite the lack of support for the Green Party amongst the general Worcester electorate, he was using his position as a potential 'kingmaker' to advance the Green agenda. Cllr Adrian Gregson, the Labour leader, had "productive" talks with him whilst Cllr Simon Geraghty, the Conservative leader, had asked for time to consider the implications before negotiations resumed.

Only needing one vote, the Conservatives could simply have given in and used Worcester tax payers money to buy control, by acceding to Councillor Laurenson's demands, as the Labour group was clearly considering. Fortunately unnecessary politically driven spending is something that the Conservatives have sought to avoid in their drive for improved cost effectiveness. Even the remaining LibDem, Councillor Liz Smith expressed concerns that Councillor Laurenson’s demands could prove too expensive.

Instead, by coming up with the Councillor Amos deal, the Conservatives managed to obtain their objective of gaining control of the City's administration, without costing the taxpayers anything extra. Once again the Conservatives provide value for money, which Labour would have found impossible.

Special thanks should go to Councillor Roger Knight who stepped away from being nominated for the position of mayor to enable the deal to be done.
[quote][p][bold]marthajones[/bold] wrote: A great shame and travesty , this man has not an ounce of decency, he has brought this office into disrepute and doesn't even care. The power hungry Conservatives , desperate to get into power, have fallen for the deviousness of Bayliss who is the real culprit here , asking about City political balances at County hall days before the meeting ? "Honest gov there was no plan it just miraculously happened?" . I feel sorry for the rest of the Tory group some of them are really good people, but they have inadvertently brought this shameful saga upon them selves by letting a disgruntled Labourite with a personal grudge control everything?. His role is key in all this and now the Tories have seen his true colours. How could the association allow this to happen? As for Allen , he has truly been dumped on the scrap heap, do the decent thing and resign.[/p][/quote]In some ways making Councillor Amos the Mayor is a classic example of having the Conservatives in charge of the City. Neither the Conservative Group or the Labour Group had an overall majority. The Conservatives needed to find one more vote and at the time Labour needed two. The Green Party's lone Councillor, Neil Laurenson, was being absolutely blatant about his willingness to sell his vote and even made public his shopping list of demands. Despite the lack of support for the Green Party amongst the general Worcester electorate, he was using his position as a potential 'kingmaker' to advance the Green agenda. Cllr Adrian Gregson, the Labour leader, had "productive" talks with him whilst Cllr Simon Geraghty, the Conservative leader, had asked for time to consider the implications before negotiations resumed. Only needing one vote, the Conservatives could simply have given in and used Worcester tax payers money to buy control, by acceding to Councillor Laurenson's demands, as the Labour group was clearly considering. Fortunately unnecessary politically driven spending is something that the Conservatives have sought to avoid in their drive for improved cost effectiveness. Even the remaining LibDem, Councillor Liz Smith expressed concerns that Councillor Laurenson’s demands could prove too expensive. Instead, by coming up with the Councillor Amos deal, the Conservatives managed to obtain their objective of gaining control of the City's administration, without costing the taxpayers anything extra. Once again the Conservatives provide value for money, which Labour would have found impossible. Special thanks should go to Councillor Roger Knight who stepped away from being nominated for the position of mayor to enable the deal to be done. EnorMouse
  • Score: -4

10:20pm Mon 9 Jun 14

presterjohn says...

EnorMouse wrote:
marthajones wrote:
A great shame and travesty , this man has not an ounce of decency, he has brought this office into disrepute and doesn't even care. The power hungry Conservatives , desperate to get into power, have fallen for the deviousness of Bayliss who is the real culprit here , asking about City political balances at County hall days before the meeting ? "Honest gov there was no plan it just miraculously happened?" . I feel sorry for the rest of the Tory group some of them are really good people, but they have inadvertently brought this shameful saga upon them selves by letting a disgruntled Labourite with a personal grudge control everything?. His role is key in all this and now the Tories have seen his true colours. How could the association allow this to happen? As for Allen , he has truly been dumped on the scrap heap, do the decent thing and resign.
In some ways making Councillor Amos the Mayor is a classic example of having the Conservatives in charge of the City. Neither the Conservative Group or the Labour Group had an overall majority. The Conservatives needed to find one more vote and at the time Labour needed two.

The Green Party's lone Councillor, Neil Laurenson, was being absolutely blatant about his willingness to sell his vote and even made public his shopping list of demands. Despite the lack of support for the Green Party amongst the general Worcester electorate, he was using his position as a potential 'kingmaker' to advance the Green agenda. Cllr Adrian Gregson, the Labour leader, had "productive" talks with him whilst Cllr Simon Geraghty, the Conservative leader, had asked for time to consider the implications before negotiations resumed.

Only needing one vote, the Conservatives could simply have given in and used Worcester tax payers money to buy control, by acceding to Councillor Laurenson's demands, as the Labour group was clearly considering. Fortunately unnecessary politically driven spending is something that the Conservatives have sought to avoid in their drive for improved cost effectiveness. Even the remaining LibDem, Councillor Liz Smith expressed concerns that Councillor Laurenson’s demands could prove too expensive.

Instead, by coming up with the Councillor Amos deal, the Conservatives managed to obtain their objective of gaining control of the City's administration, without costing the taxpayers anything extra. Once again the Conservatives provide value for money, which Labour would have found impossible.

Special thanks should go to Councillor Roger Knight who stepped away from being nominated for the position of mayor to enable the deal to be done.
Come off it. We all understand that deals are made all the time it is part and parcel of politics. Some deals are more grubby than others though. From my point of view I can perfectly well understand that both main parties would be willing to do trades. You cannot compare what the Green councilor has done with what Amos has though. The Greens had an opportunity to push the agenda they went to the public with. The deal would have furthered (rightly or wrongly) the policies they feel are best for Worcester. Amos on the other hand was, is and by the looks of it always will be just a thoroughly self serving individual who is out for himself. They are not even remotely similar.
[quote][p][bold]EnorMouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]marthajones[/bold] wrote: A great shame and travesty , this man has not an ounce of decency, he has brought this office into disrepute and doesn't even care. The power hungry Conservatives , desperate to get into power, have fallen for the deviousness of Bayliss who is the real culprit here , asking about City political balances at County hall days before the meeting ? "Honest gov there was no plan it just miraculously happened?" . I feel sorry for the rest of the Tory group some of them are really good people, but they have inadvertently brought this shameful saga upon them selves by letting a disgruntled Labourite with a personal grudge control everything?. His role is key in all this and now the Tories have seen his true colours. How could the association allow this to happen? As for Allen , he has truly been dumped on the scrap heap, do the decent thing and resign.[/p][/quote]In some ways making Councillor Amos the Mayor is a classic example of having the Conservatives in charge of the City. Neither the Conservative Group or the Labour Group had an overall majority. The Conservatives needed to find one more vote and at the time Labour needed two. The Green Party's lone Councillor, Neil Laurenson, was being absolutely blatant about his willingness to sell his vote and even made public his shopping list of demands. Despite the lack of support for the Green Party amongst the general Worcester electorate, he was using his position as a potential 'kingmaker' to advance the Green agenda. Cllr Adrian Gregson, the Labour leader, had "productive" talks with him whilst Cllr Simon Geraghty, the Conservative leader, had asked for time to consider the implications before negotiations resumed. Only needing one vote, the Conservatives could simply have given in and used Worcester tax payers money to buy control, by acceding to Councillor Laurenson's demands, as the Labour group was clearly considering. Fortunately unnecessary politically driven spending is something that the Conservatives have sought to avoid in their drive for improved cost effectiveness. Even the remaining LibDem, Councillor Liz Smith expressed concerns that Councillor Laurenson’s demands could prove too expensive. Instead, by coming up with the Councillor Amos deal, the Conservatives managed to obtain their objective of gaining control of the City's administration, without costing the taxpayers anything extra. Once again the Conservatives provide value for money, which Labour would have found impossible. Special thanks should go to Councillor Roger Knight who stepped away from being nominated for the position of mayor to enable the deal to be done.[/p][/quote]Come off it. We all understand that deals are made all the time it is part and parcel of politics. Some deals are more grubby than others though. From my point of view I can perfectly well understand that both main parties would be willing to do trades. You cannot compare what the Green councilor has done with what Amos has though. The Greens had an opportunity to push the agenda they went to the public with. The deal would have furthered (rightly or wrongly) the policies they feel are best for Worcester. Amos on the other hand was, is and by the looks of it always will be just a thoroughly self serving individual who is out for himself. They are not even remotely similar. presterjohn
  • Score: 3

12:36am Tue 10 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

presterjohn wrote:
EnorMouse wrote:
marthajones wrote:
A great shame and travesty , this man has not an ounce of decency, he has brought this office into disrepute and doesn't even care. The power hungry Conservatives , desperate to get into power, have fallen for the deviousness of Bayliss who is the real culprit here , asking about City political balances at County hall days before the meeting ? "Honest gov there was no plan it just miraculously happened?" . I feel sorry for the rest of the Tory group some of them are really good people, but they have inadvertently brought this shameful saga upon them selves by letting a disgruntled Labourite with a personal grudge control everything?. His role is key in all this and now the Tories have seen his true colours. How could the association allow this to happen? As for Allen , he has truly been dumped on the scrap heap, do the decent thing and resign.
In some ways making Councillor Amos the Mayor is a classic example of having the Conservatives in charge of the City. Neither the Conservative Group or the Labour Group had an overall majority. The Conservatives needed to find one more vote and at the time Labour needed two.

The Green Party's lone Councillor, Neil Laurenson, was being absolutely blatant about his willingness to sell his vote and even made public his shopping list of demands. Despite the lack of support for the Green Party amongst the general Worcester electorate, he was using his position as a potential 'kingmaker' to advance the Green agenda. Cllr Adrian Gregson, the Labour leader, had "productive" talks with him whilst Cllr Simon Geraghty, the Conservative leader, had asked for time to consider the implications before negotiations resumed.

Only needing one vote, the Conservatives could simply have given in and used Worcester tax payers money to buy control, by acceding to Councillor Laurenson's demands, as the Labour group was clearly considering. Fortunately unnecessary politically driven spending is something that the Conservatives have sought to avoid in their drive for improved cost effectiveness. Even the remaining LibDem, Councillor Liz Smith expressed concerns that Councillor Laurenson’s demands could prove too expensive.

Instead, by coming up with the Councillor Amos deal, the Conservatives managed to obtain their objective of gaining control of the City's administration, without costing the taxpayers anything extra. Once again the Conservatives provide value for money, which Labour would have found impossible.

Special thanks should go to Councillor Roger Knight who stepped away from being nominated for the position of mayor to enable the deal to be done.
Come off it. We all understand that deals are made all the time it is part and parcel of politics. Some deals are more grubby than others though. From my point of view I can perfectly well understand that both main parties would be willing to do trades. You cannot compare what the Green councilor has done with what Amos has though. The Greens had an opportunity to push the agenda they went to the public with. The deal would have furthered (rightly or wrongly) the policies they feel are best for Worcester. Amos on the other hand was, is and by the looks of it always will be just a thoroughly self serving individual who is out for himself. They are not even remotely similar.
I do not attempt to justify Councillor Amos's actions. My comments were aimed at the criticisms of the Conservatives for agreeing to the deal. As you rightly say, such deals are a part and parcel of politics and had the Conservatives done a deal with Councillor Laurenson, then the compromises would have been accepted as the norm for putting together a coalition.

My point was that doing a deal with Councillor Amos was cheaper for Worcester residents than doing a deal with Councillor Laurenson. Whilst the Conservatives might have got less flack for a deal with Councillor Laurenson, they actually chose the riskier but cheaper option, which is what you would expect from the Conservatives.
[quote][p][bold]presterjohn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EnorMouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]marthajones[/bold] wrote: A great shame and travesty , this man has not an ounce of decency, he has brought this office into disrepute and doesn't even care. The power hungry Conservatives , desperate to get into power, have fallen for the deviousness of Bayliss who is the real culprit here , asking about City political balances at County hall days before the meeting ? "Honest gov there was no plan it just miraculously happened?" . I feel sorry for the rest of the Tory group some of them are really good people, but they have inadvertently brought this shameful saga upon them selves by letting a disgruntled Labourite with a personal grudge control everything?. His role is key in all this and now the Tories have seen his true colours. How could the association allow this to happen? As for Allen , he has truly been dumped on the scrap heap, do the decent thing and resign.[/p][/quote]In some ways making Councillor Amos the Mayor is a classic example of having the Conservatives in charge of the City. Neither the Conservative Group or the Labour Group had an overall majority. The Conservatives needed to find one more vote and at the time Labour needed two. The Green Party's lone Councillor, Neil Laurenson, was being absolutely blatant about his willingness to sell his vote and even made public his shopping list of demands. Despite the lack of support for the Green Party amongst the general Worcester electorate, he was using his position as a potential 'kingmaker' to advance the Green agenda. Cllr Adrian Gregson, the Labour leader, had "productive" talks with him whilst Cllr Simon Geraghty, the Conservative leader, had asked for time to consider the implications before negotiations resumed. Only needing one vote, the Conservatives could simply have given in and used Worcester tax payers money to buy control, by acceding to Councillor Laurenson's demands, as the Labour group was clearly considering. Fortunately unnecessary politically driven spending is something that the Conservatives have sought to avoid in their drive for improved cost effectiveness. Even the remaining LibDem, Councillor Liz Smith expressed concerns that Councillor Laurenson’s demands could prove too expensive. Instead, by coming up with the Councillor Amos deal, the Conservatives managed to obtain their objective of gaining control of the City's administration, without costing the taxpayers anything extra. Once again the Conservatives provide value for money, which Labour would have found impossible. Special thanks should go to Councillor Roger Knight who stepped away from being nominated for the position of mayor to enable the deal to be done.[/p][/quote]Come off it. We all understand that deals are made all the time it is part and parcel of politics. Some deals are more grubby than others though. From my point of view I can perfectly well understand that both main parties would be willing to do trades. You cannot compare what the Green councilor has done with what Amos has though. The Greens had an opportunity to push the agenda they went to the public with. The deal would have furthered (rightly or wrongly) the policies they feel are best for Worcester. Amos on the other hand was, is and by the looks of it always will be just a thoroughly self serving individual who is out for himself. They are not even remotely similar.[/p][/quote]I do not attempt to justify Councillor Amos's actions. My comments were aimed at the criticisms of the Conservatives for agreeing to the deal. As you rightly say, such deals are a part and parcel of politics and had the Conservatives done a deal with Councillor Laurenson, then the compromises would have been accepted as the norm for putting together a coalition. My point was that doing a deal with Councillor Amos was cheaper for Worcester residents than doing a deal with Councillor Laurenson. Whilst the Conservatives might have got less flack for a deal with Councillor Laurenson, they actually chose the riskier but cheaper option, which is what you would expect from the Conservatives. EnorMouse
  • Score: 0

9:34am Tue 10 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

@EnorMous - are you Simon Geraghty in disguise?
@EnorMous - are you Simon Geraghty in disguise? Ted Elgar
  • Score: 1

11:54am Tue 10 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

Ted Elgar wrote:
@EnorMous - are you Simon Geraghty in disguise?
No, I have been involved with the Conservatives in the past, but nothing active for the last decade or so. Can not pretend that I have been overjoyed by some of the things that they have been doing both nationally and locally and am attracted to UKIP with regard to Europe.

Having said that, locally I tend to think that they are getting it right being more concerned about what services are provided and at what cost to the tax payer, rather than how they are provided. If we can protect services and keep down costs by engaging in partnerships with others, I give a higher priority to this than maintaining the size of the Council's directly employed workforce.
[quote][p][bold]Ted Elgar[/bold] wrote: @EnorMous - are you Simon Geraghty in disguise?[/p][/quote]No, I have been involved with the Conservatives in the past, but nothing active for the last decade or so. Can not pretend that I have been overjoyed by some of the things that they have been doing both nationally and locally and am attracted to UKIP with regard to Europe. Having said that, locally I tend to think that they are getting it right being more concerned about what services are provided and at what cost to the tax payer, rather than how they are provided. If we can protect services and keep down costs by engaging in partnerships with others, I give a higher priority to this than maintaining the size of the Council's directly employed workforce. EnorMouse
  • Score: -1

3:04pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

Thanks for your reply EnorMouse
Thanks for your reply EnorMouse Ted Elgar
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

NB _ The 1000 signatures total was the arbitrary total set by ipetitions. It would be great to get anywhere near that, but if we get to 500 I will pop round to Alan's house and deliver him a copy by hand.
NB _ The 1000 signatures total was the arbitrary total set by ipetitions. It would be great to get anywhere near that, but if we get to 500 I will pop round to Alan's house and deliver him a copy by hand. Ted Elgar
  • Score: 5

5:51pm Tue 10 Jun 14

dropkick55 says...

Yet another tory ponce!!
Yet another tory ponce!! dropkick55
  • Score: 1

6:28pm Tue 10 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

dropkick55 wrote:
Yet another tory ponce!!
Yet another useful and constructive contribution to the debate from Labour
[quote][p][bold]dropkick55[/bold] wrote: Yet another tory ponce!![/p][/quote]Yet another useful and constructive contribution to the debate from Labour EnorMouse
  • Score: -2

9:16pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Chris.Styles says...

Amos has a shameful history of playing dirty politics. This latest stunt confirms that he's only out for himself. it is disgusting that the conservatives have played such cheap politics, it really is the lowest any party in worcester has ever stooped. If Amos is deluded enough to think that the people of Worcester will respect him as a mayor then he really does need help.
Amos has a shameful history of playing dirty politics. This latest stunt confirms that he's only out for himself. it is disgusting that the conservatives have played such cheap politics, it really is the lowest any party in worcester has ever stooped. If Amos is deluded enough to think that the people of Worcester will respect him as a mayor then he really does need help. Chris.Styles
  • Score: 6

9:40am Wed 11 Jun 14

Marant says...

I can't help but think that if Labour had done the same thing (and remembering a recent coup) there wouldn't have been such an outcry.

For all the chest-thumping about 'it isn't what the voters want', I find it interesting that in the first election following the labour coup a few months ago (which involved lots of deals), the Conservatives are back in a position to form the cabinet again. So it certainly looks like what the voters want more than a labour cabinet. Certainly a Labour cabinet is no good for the businesses of Worcester.
I can't help but think that if Labour had done the same thing (and remembering a recent coup) there wouldn't have been such an outcry. For all the chest-thumping about 'it isn't what the voters want', I find it interesting that in the first election following the labour coup a few months ago (which involved lots of deals), the Conservatives are back in a position to form the cabinet again. So it certainly looks like what the voters want more than a labour cabinet. Certainly a Labour cabinet is no good for the businesses of Worcester. Marant
  • Score: -1

9:58am Wed 11 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

Marant wrote:
I can't help but think that if Labour had done the same thing (and remembering a recent coup) there wouldn't have been such an outcry.

For all the chest-thumping about 'it isn't what the voters want', I find it interesting that in the first election following the labour coup a few months ago (which involved lots of deals), the Conservatives are back in a position to form the cabinet again. So it certainly looks like what the voters want more than a labour cabinet. Certainly a Labour cabinet is no good for the businesses of Worcester.
Good observation - Given that by any objective measure, the number of Councillors, share of the popular vote and share of the European vote, the voters of Worcester have chosen the Conservatives over Labour. Never the less, Labour supporters seem to have reached the conclusion that control of the Council has been unfairly snatched from them.
[quote][p][bold]Marant[/bold] wrote: I can't help but think that if Labour had done the same thing (and remembering a recent coup) there wouldn't have been such an outcry. For all the chest-thumping about 'it isn't what the voters want', I find it interesting that in the first election following the labour coup a few months ago (which involved lots of deals), the Conservatives are back in a position to form the cabinet again. So it certainly looks like what the voters want more than a labour cabinet. Certainly a Labour cabinet is no good for the businesses of Worcester.[/p][/quote]Good observation - Given that by any objective measure, the number of Councillors, share of the popular vote and share of the European vote, the voters of Worcester have chosen the Conservatives over Labour. Never the less, Labour supporters seem to have reached the conclusion that control of the Council has been unfairly snatched from them. EnorMouse
  • Score: -1

11:01am Wed 11 Jun 14

Jabbadad says...

To try to say that by the election results the Worcester voters no longer wanted a Labour Council is as likely as trying to make a silk Purse out of a Sows Ear (as they say). The whole point is that with these Political Tourists such as Amos, Bayliss and any others who enjoy their success from those voters who entrusted them with their votes to suddenly cross the floor (as they say) or jump ship taking with them the votes entrusted, is just NOT ON.
And no ammount of what if's maybe's or any other words will change this. We operate a first past the post voting system. I would be more happy if it were proportional representation, but we have what we have, and so tourist politicians should immediately stand down and try to get re-elected again while wearing their new colours. Pam Clayton was genuine enough to do this (well done Pam) and was very closely beaten by Jo Hodges Labour.
To try to say that by the election results the Worcester voters no longer wanted a Labour Council is as likely as trying to make a silk Purse out of a Sows Ear (as they say). The whole point is that with these Political Tourists such as Amos, Bayliss and any others who enjoy their success from those voters who entrusted them with their votes to suddenly cross the floor (as they say) or jump ship taking with them the votes entrusted, is just NOT ON. And no ammount of what if's maybe's or any other words will change this. We operate a first past the post voting system. I would be more happy if it were proportional representation, but we have what we have, and so tourist politicians should immediately stand down and try to get re-elected again while wearing their new colours. Pam Clayton was genuine enough to do this (well done Pam) and was very closely beaten by Jo Hodges Labour. Jabbadad
  • Score: 1

12:34pm Wed 11 Jun 14

themooman says...

my previous landlord had a boss-eye, and i dont trust him either - moral of the sotry dont trust a man who cant look straight!!
my previous landlord had a boss-eye, and i dont trust him either - moral of the sotry dont trust a man who cant look straight!! themooman
  • Score: -2

1:29pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

Posting juvenile crap like that is just going to allow him to shrug this criticism off.
Read some interviews of him in his New Labour days (c.2000) then you will find that he was convinced his former constituents in Northumberland were horrible people and it is everyone's fault but his own.
People are signing the petition because they feel duped by his "independent" status not because of what he looks like /. what he did or didnt do behind a pub in Hampstead.
I dare say there are some Warndon Tories out there who would have preferred the official Tory candidate to Alan.
Pack it in.
Posting juvenile crap like that is just going to allow him to shrug this criticism off. Read some interviews of him in his New Labour days (c.2000) then you will find that he was convinced his former constituents in Northumberland were horrible people and it is everyone's fault but his own. People are signing the petition because they feel duped by his "independent" status not because of what he looks like /. what he did or didnt do behind a pub in Hampstead. I dare say there are some Warndon Tories out there who would have preferred the official Tory candidate to Alan. Pack it in. Ted Elgar
  • Score: 2

2:08pm Wed 11 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

Jabbadad wrote:
To try to say that by the election results the Worcester voters no longer wanted a Labour Council is as likely as trying to make a silk Purse out of a Sows Ear (as they say). The whole point is that with these Political Tourists such as Amos, Bayliss and any others who enjoy their success from those voters who entrusted them with their votes to suddenly cross the floor (as they say) or jump ship taking with them the votes entrusted, is just NOT ON.
And no ammount of what if's maybe's or any other words will change this. We operate a first past the post voting system. I would be more happy if it were proportional representation, but we have what we have, and so tourist politicians should immediately stand down and try to get re-elected again while wearing their new colours. Pam Clayton was genuine enough to do this (well done Pam) and was very closely beaten by Jo Hodges Labour.
Sorry Jabbadad, but when the voters elect more Conservative Councillors than any other group and cast more votes in favour of Conservative candidates than any other party, I take that to mean that Worcester voters would prefer to have a Conservative run Council than a Labour run one. That is what the democratic process is all about. Of course with the number of Councillors so close, the final outcome will come down to horse trading, but the voters have made their preference clear.

To read anything else into the results is to simply delude yourself. The ordinary, decent, largely working class population of Worcester are simply not currently willing to turn out in the required numbers to give the Labour Party control of Worcester City Council. If you believe that the Labour Party should naturally be in power in Worcester, then you need to be asking yourselves what you are doing wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: To try to say that by the election results the Worcester voters no longer wanted a Labour Council is as likely as trying to make a silk Purse out of a Sows Ear (as they say). The whole point is that with these Political Tourists such as Amos, Bayliss and any others who enjoy their success from those voters who entrusted them with their votes to suddenly cross the floor (as they say) or jump ship taking with them the votes entrusted, is just NOT ON. And no ammount of what if's maybe's or any other words will change this. We operate a first past the post voting system. I would be more happy if it were proportional representation, but we have what we have, and so tourist politicians should immediately stand down and try to get re-elected again while wearing their new colours. Pam Clayton was genuine enough to do this (well done Pam) and was very closely beaten by Jo Hodges Labour.[/p][/quote]Sorry Jabbadad, but when the voters elect more Conservative Councillors than any other group and cast more votes in favour of Conservative candidates than any other party, I take that to mean that Worcester voters would prefer to have a Conservative run Council than a Labour run one. That is what the democratic process is all about. Of course with the number of Councillors so close, the final outcome will come down to horse trading, but the voters have made their preference clear. To read anything else into the results is to simply delude yourself. The ordinary, decent, largely working class population of Worcester are simply not currently willing to turn out in the required numbers to give the Labour Party control of Worcester City Council. If you believe that the Labour Party should naturally be in power in Worcester, then you need to be asking yourselves what you are doing wrong. EnorMouse
  • Score: 0

4:10pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Jabbadad says...

Enormous I wasn't saying anything of the sort. The seats are won individually and the Candidate for each ward which has the largest ammount of votes gets elected right. It has nothing to do with playing with the figures as Francis Lankester is trying to do, to get some solace for losing to Riaz. It's called First Past The Post.
The point I was trying to make which seemed to deep for you, Enormous to follow was that when a candidate becomes a Councillor for any party in a Ward they stood in, then they have been elected by the voters of that Ward to represent them. Follow me?
Should they wish to change their Political Allegiance then they should stand down and try to get re-elected under their new political party.
What should be stopped is when the political Tourists such as Amos, Bayliss and Riaz decide to swap Parties and take the ward votes to another Party, Following Enormouse.
It's simple democracy not Political immorality.
Enormous I wasn't saying anything of the sort. The seats are won individually and the Candidate for each ward which has the largest ammount of votes gets elected right. It has nothing to do with playing with the figures as Francis Lankester is trying to do, to get some solace for losing to Riaz. It's called First Past The Post. The point I was trying to make which seemed to deep for you, Enormous to follow was that when a candidate becomes a Councillor for any party in a Ward they stood in, then they have been elected by the voters of that Ward to represent them. Follow me? Should they wish to change their Political Allegiance then they should stand down and try to get re-elected under their new political party. What should be stopped is when the political Tourists such as Amos, Bayliss and Riaz decide to swap Parties and take the ward votes to another Party, Following Enormouse. It's simple democracy not Political immorality. Jabbadad
  • Score: 1

4:12pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Jabbadad says...

Enormous I wasn't saying anything of the sort. The seats are won individually and the Candidate for each ward which has the largest ammount of votes gets elected right. It has nothing to do with playing with the figures as Francis Lankester is trying to do, to get some solace for losing to Riaz. It's called First Past The Post.
The point I was trying to make which seemed to deep for you, Enormous to follow was that when a candidate becomes a Councillor for any party in any Ward they stood in, then they have been elected by the voters of that Ward to represent them. Follow me?
Should they wish to change their Political Allegiance they should then stand down and try to get re-elected wearing their new political party badge.
What should be stopped is when the political Tourists such as Amos, Bayliss and Riaz decide to swap Parties and take the ward votes to another Party, Following Enormouse.
It's simple democracy not Political immorality.
Enormous I wasn't saying anything of the sort. The seats are won individually and the Candidate for each ward which has the largest ammount of votes gets elected right. It has nothing to do with playing with the figures as Francis Lankester is trying to do, to get some solace for losing to Riaz. It's called First Past The Post. The point I was trying to make which seemed to deep for you, Enormous to follow was that when a candidate becomes a Councillor for any party in any Ward they stood in, then they have been elected by the voters of that Ward to represent them. Follow me? Should they wish to change their Political Allegiance they should then stand down and try to get re-elected wearing their new political party badge. What should be stopped is when the political Tourists such as Amos, Bayliss and Riaz decide to swap Parties and take the ward votes to another Party, Following Enormouse. It's simple democracy not Political immorality. Jabbadad
  • Score: 1

5:14pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

Hopefully the howls of protest will discourage any wannabe Riaz/Amos from flipping in the future.
Some people have argued on here that people should vote for candidates and not party, but that is clearly a load of old nonsence.
People vote for, and understand, the whip system. They are knowingly voting for this or that party. Some candidates are undeniably strong or charismatic, but to argue that flipping parties just after an election is OK by the electorate is not reflected in the very angry reaction of a lot of Warndon voters.. at least the ones "willing" to turn out.
I suppose you are going to argue that the low turn out means that their votes don't count? Maybe we could just return to a system where only men of social status can vote perhaps?
Hopefully the howls of protest will discourage any wannabe Riaz/Amos from flipping in the future. Some people have argued on here that people should vote for candidates and not party, but that is clearly a load of old nonsence. People vote for, and understand, the whip system. They are knowingly voting for this or that party. Some candidates are undeniably strong or charismatic, but to argue that flipping parties just after an election is OK by the electorate is not reflected in the very angry reaction of a lot of Warndon voters.. at least the ones "willing" to turn out. I suppose you are going to argue that the low turn out means that their votes don't count? Maybe we could just return to a system where only men of social status can vote perhaps? Ted Elgar
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

Hopefully the howls of protest will discourage any wannabe Riaz/Amos from flipping in the future.
Some people have argued on here that people should vote for candidates and not party, but that is clearly a load of old nonsense.
People vote for, and understand, the whip system. They are knowingly voting for this or that party. Some candidates are undeniably strong or charismatic, but to argue that flipping parties just after an election is OK by the electorate is not reflected in the very angry reaction of a lot of Warndon voters.. at least the ones "willing" to turn out.
I suppose you are going to argue that the low turn out means that their votes don't count? Maybe we could just return to a system where only men of social status can vote perhaps?
Hopefully the howls of protest will discourage any wannabe Riaz/Amos from flipping in the future. Some people have argued on here that people should vote for candidates and not party, but that is clearly a load of old nonsense. People vote for, and understand, the whip system. They are knowingly voting for this or that party. Some candidates are undeniably strong or charismatic, but to argue that flipping parties just after an election is OK by the electorate is not reflected in the very angry reaction of a lot of Warndon voters.. at least the ones "willing" to turn out. I suppose you are going to argue that the low turn out means that their votes don't count? Maybe we could just return to a system where only men of social status can vote perhaps? Ted Elgar
  • Score: 1

5:29pm Wed 11 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

Jabbadad wrote:
Enormous I wasn't saying anything of the sort. The seats are won individually and the Candidate for each ward which has the largest ammount of votes gets elected right. It has nothing to do with playing with the figures as Francis Lankester is trying to do, to get some solace for losing to Riaz. It's called First Past The Post.
The point I was trying to make which seemed to deep for you, Enormous to follow was that when a candidate becomes a Councillor for any party in a Ward they stood in, then they have been elected by the voters of that Ward to represent them. Follow me?
Should they wish to change their Political Allegiance then they should stand down and try to get re-elected under their new political party.
What should be stopped is when the political Tourists such as Amos, Bayliss and Riaz decide to swap Parties and take the ward votes to another Party, Following Enormouse.
It's simple democracy not Political immorality.
For the avoidance of doubt, I know nothing about Francis Lankester's playing with numbers. I agree that he lost and Councillor Riaz won. End of story.

So lets get this clear - so far as you are concerned, if the Conservatives had done a deal with either the Green Party or the LibDem Councillor then there would not be the slightest question that the Conservatives should be in control of the Council. Correct? Your only concern is that Councillor Amos decided to resign from the Labour Group and thereafter sit as an Independent and then in that capacity decided to do a deal with the Conservative Group. Fair comment?

I am afraid that it is yourself that does not understand how our democracy works. With both the first past the post system and indeed the alternative vote system, party affiliation plays no part in the election. This only comes into play in PR type systems. With the first past the post system, residents vote for their preferred candidate. The candidate that gets the most number of votes is elected.

If you look at the nomination/ballot papers you will see a box alongside the candidate's name for description. Candidates can choose to put something in this box if they so wish, but are not required to. Normally it is used to indicate the political party to which they at that time give their support. Voters vote for the candidate, not the description. If in due course the candidate decides to change their political affiliation, it in no way invalidates their original election or their continuing to hold office. That is the way the system works and any other interpretation is simply wishful thinking on your part.

There is a part of me that considers such political defections to be a good thing, although clearly from a party political perspective they are anything but. If political defections became commonplace, then voters would have to look a lot more closely at the character of the candidates and then hopefully choose the best, rather than the monkey wearing the red, blue, green, yellow or even purple rosette.
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: Enormous I wasn't saying anything of the sort. The seats are won individually and the Candidate for each ward which has the largest ammount of votes gets elected right. It has nothing to do with playing with the figures as Francis Lankester is trying to do, to get some solace for losing to Riaz. It's called First Past The Post. The point I was trying to make which seemed to deep for you, Enormous to follow was that when a candidate becomes a Councillor for any party in a Ward they stood in, then they have been elected by the voters of that Ward to represent them. Follow me? Should they wish to change their Political Allegiance then they should stand down and try to get re-elected under their new political party. What should be stopped is when the political Tourists such as Amos, Bayliss and Riaz decide to swap Parties and take the ward votes to another Party, Following Enormouse. It's simple democracy not Political immorality.[/p][/quote]For the avoidance of doubt, I know nothing about Francis Lankester's playing with numbers. I agree that he lost and Councillor Riaz won. End of story. So lets get this clear - so far as you are concerned, if the Conservatives had done a deal with either the Green Party or the LibDem Councillor then there would not be the slightest question that the Conservatives should be in control of the Council. Correct? Your only concern is that Councillor Amos decided to resign from the Labour Group and thereafter sit as an Independent and then in that capacity decided to do a deal with the Conservative Group. Fair comment? I am afraid that it is yourself that does not understand how our democracy works. With both the first past the post system and indeed the alternative vote system, party affiliation plays no part in the election. This only comes into play in PR type systems. With the first past the post system, residents vote for their preferred candidate. The candidate that gets the most number of votes is elected. If you look at the nomination/ballot papers you will see a box alongside the candidate's name for description. Candidates can choose to put something in this box if they so wish, but are not required to. Normally it is used to indicate the political party to which they at that time give their support. Voters vote for the candidate, not the description. If in due course the candidate decides to change their political affiliation, it in no way invalidates their original election or their continuing to hold office. That is the way the system works and any other interpretation is simply wishful thinking on your part. There is a part of me that considers such political defections to be a good thing, although clearly from a party political perspective they are anything but. If political defections became commonplace, then voters would have to look a lot more closely at the character of the candidates and then hopefully choose the best, rather than the monkey wearing the red, blue, green, yellow or even purple rosette. EnorMouse
  • Score: -1

5:46pm Wed 11 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

Ted Elgar wrote:
Hopefully the howls of protest will discourage any wannabe Riaz/Amos from flipping in the future.
Some people have argued on here that people should vote for candidates and not party, but that is clearly a load of old nonsense.
People vote for, and understand, the whip system. They are knowingly voting for this or that party. Some candidates are undeniably strong or charismatic, but to argue that flipping parties just after an election is OK by the electorate is not reflected in the very angry reaction of a lot of Warndon voters.. at least the ones "willing" to turn out.
I suppose you are going to argue that the low turn out means that their votes don't count? Maybe we could just return to a system where only men of social status can vote perhaps?
Let us be quite clear and ignore all of the rubbish you are trying to attribute to me and the points I have made.

I do not argue that "people should vote for candidates and not party", I point out that this is the legal position. It is not something that is up for discussion. Some voters may not care who the candidate is and are willing to vote for anyone wearing their party's rosette, but that is a risk that they are taking.

Councillor Amos did not stand for election as a candidate of the Labour Party and immediately upon election give up that affiliation to sit as an Independent. Councillor Amos was elected in the 2012 local elections and has belonged to the Labour Group for the last two years. There is absolutely no question of him "flipping parties just after an election".

Perhaps the way the truth is getting twisted in this debate might give an insight as to part of the motivation for Councillor Amos deciding that the Labour Group was no longer for him.
[quote][p][bold]Ted Elgar[/bold] wrote: Hopefully the howls of protest will discourage any wannabe Riaz/Amos from flipping in the future. Some people have argued on here that people should vote for candidates and not party, but that is clearly a load of old nonsense. People vote for, and understand, the whip system. They are knowingly voting for this or that party. Some candidates are undeniably strong or charismatic, but to argue that flipping parties just after an election is OK by the electorate is not reflected in the very angry reaction of a lot of Warndon voters.. at least the ones "willing" to turn out. I suppose you are going to argue that the low turn out means that their votes don't count? Maybe we could just return to a system where only men of social status can vote perhaps?[/p][/quote]Let us be quite clear and ignore all of the rubbish you are trying to attribute to me and the points I have made. I do not argue that "people should vote for candidates and not party", I point out that this is the legal position. It is not something that is up for discussion. Some voters may not care who the candidate is and are willing to vote for anyone wearing their party's rosette, but that is a risk that they are taking. Councillor Amos did not stand for election as a candidate of the Labour Party and immediately upon election give up that affiliation to sit as an Independent. Councillor Amos was elected in the 2012 local elections and has belonged to the Labour Group for the last two years. There is absolutely no question of him "flipping parties just after an election". Perhaps the way the truth is getting twisted in this debate might give an insight as to part of the motivation for Councillor Amos deciding that the Labour Group was no longer for him. EnorMouse
  • Score: -3

6:06pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

So you are or aren't arguing that people should be voting for a candidate and ignoring the party they happen to indicate support for at the time of their election? I'm confused.
So you are or aren't arguing that people should be voting for a candidate and ignoring the party they happen to indicate support for at the time of their election? I'm confused. Ted Elgar
  • Score: 1

6:59pm Wed 11 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

"Perhaps the way the truth is getting twisted in this debate might give an insight as to part of the motivation for Councillor Amos deciding that the Labour Group was no longer for him."

More likely two years was just a very long time for a New Labour convert like Alan... that awkward moment when everyone starts singing the Red Flag on the decking chez-Gregson must have been hard for him.
"Perhaps the way the truth is getting twisted in this debate might give an insight as to part of the motivation for Councillor Amos deciding that the Labour Group was no longer for him." More likely two years was just a very long time for a New Labour convert like Alan... that awkward moment when everyone starts singing the Red Flag on the decking chez-Gregson must have been hard for him. Ted Elgar
  • Score: 2

9:16pm Wed 11 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

Ted Elgar wrote:
So you are or aren't arguing that people should be voting for a candidate and ignoring the party they happen to indicate support for at the time of their election? I'm confused.
It does not matter what people SHOULD be voting for, by law they ARE voting for the individual named on the ballot paper. That is the reality that they have to live with. It is the named individual who is declared to have been elected to serve as a Councillor for the particular Ward.

A political party could make it a condition of selecting a candidate, that should they subsequently resign from the Group then they would also resign as being a Councillor. It would however be impossible to enforce such an undertaking at law if the individual subsequently chose to ignore it. Election Law would trump such an agreement.
[quote][p][bold]Ted Elgar[/bold] wrote: So you are or aren't arguing that people should be voting for a candidate and ignoring the party they happen to indicate support for at the time of their election? I'm confused.[/p][/quote]It does not matter what people SHOULD be voting for, by law they ARE voting for the individual named on the ballot paper. That is the reality that they have to live with. It is the named individual who is declared to have been elected to serve as a Councillor for the particular Ward. A political party could make it a condition of selecting a candidate, that should they subsequently resign from the Group then they would also resign as being a Councillor. It would however be impossible to enforce such an undertaking at law if the individual subsequently chose to ignore it. Election Law would trump such an agreement. EnorMouse
  • Score: -1

9:32pm Wed 11 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

Ted Elgar wrote:
"Perhaps the way the truth is getting twisted in this debate might give an insight as to part of the motivation for Councillor Amos deciding that the Labour Group was no longer for him."

More likely two years was just a very long time for a New Labour convert like Alan... that awkward moment when everyone starts singing the Red Flag on the decking chez-Gregson must have been hard for him.
My reference to 2012 was to Councillor Amos's current term as a Councillor. He stood as the Labour Party candidate for Warndon Ward and was elected in 2008, so in fact he has had six years within the Labour Group.

Perhaps he felt that after six years service to the Party he was entitled to a little more respect than Councillor Riaz, who had crossed the floor from the Conservatives less than a year earlier, yet who was being put forward as the Labour nominee for the post of Deputy Mayor.
[quote][p][bold]Ted Elgar[/bold] wrote: "Perhaps the way the truth is getting twisted in this debate might give an insight as to part of the motivation for Councillor Amos deciding that the Labour Group was no longer for him." More likely two years was just a very long time for a New Labour convert like Alan... that awkward moment when everyone starts singing the Red Flag on the decking chez-Gregson must have been hard for him.[/p][/quote]My reference to 2012 was to Councillor Amos's current term as a Councillor. He stood as the Labour Party candidate for Warndon Ward and was elected in 2008, so in fact he has had six years within the Labour Group. Perhaps he felt that after six years service to the Party he was entitled to a little more respect than Councillor Riaz, who had crossed the floor from the Conservatives less than a year earlier, yet who was being put forward as the Labour nominee for the post of Deputy Mayor. EnorMouse
  • Score: -1

11:05pm Wed 11 Jun 14

MalvernTeacher says...

High Time wrote:
MalvernTeacher wrote:
Doesn't look like there are any voices in support of Amos' cowardly actions! But I doubt he is listening or cares. In an age when the electorate has become increasingly sceptical of the political system, Mr. Amos furthers their disengagement by his self-serving actions. His lack of moral compass is disturbing.
I would not say cowardly! He is either brave or very think skinned to do what he has done. It has created lots of interest and interaction amongst W/N readers, but, with the low circulation of the W/N the majority of people in Worcester don't know or don't care about what goes on at the Guildhall. Some of the comments that have been made on here are obviously from the politically minded, many probably Party members, and clearly orchestrated.
I'm neither a Labor or Conservative Party member, and I assure my comments were in no way orchestrated by their machinations! Some people are able to think for themselves.
[quote][p][bold]High Time[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MalvernTeacher[/bold] wrote: Doesn't look like there are any voices in support of Amos' cowardly actions! But I doubt he is listening or cares. In an age when the electorate has become increasingly sceptical of the political system, Mr. Amos furthers their disengagement by his self-serving actions. His lack of moral compass is disturbing.[/p][/quote]I would not say cowardly! He is either brave or very think skinned to do what he has done. It has created lots of interest and interaction amongst W/N readers, but, with the low circulation of the W/N the majority of people in Worcester don't know or don't care about what goes on at the Guildhall. Some of the comments that have been made on here are obviously from the politically minded, many probably Party members, and clearly orchestrated.[/p][/quote]I'm neither a Labor or Conservative Party member, and I assure my comments were in no way orchestrated by their machinations! Some people are able to think for themselves. MalvernTeacher
  • Score: 3

1:35am Thu 12 Jun 14

jammer1010 says...

I've said this before in previous comments, but the biggest prize for the Conservatives of course, is winning the next general election with an overall majority. It will take just a 2.9 % swing from Conservative to Labour for Labour to take the Worcester seat as well as sweeping away this corrupt Worcester local admistration. Don't give in to apathy and hit the Conservatives where it hurts, and vote against them in May 2015. If the Tories can't hold on to this seat next year they have no hopes of forming the next government,
I've said this before in previous comments, but the biggest prize for the Conservatives of course, is winning the next general election with an overall majority. It will take just a 2.9 % swing from Conservative to Labour for Labour to take the Worcester seat as well as sweeping away this corrupt Worcester local admistration. Don't give in to apathy and hit the Conservatives where it hurts, and vote against them in May 2015. If the Tories can't hold on to this seat next year they have no hopes of forming the next government, jammer1010
  • Score: 4

7:36am Thu 12 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

@High Time . Nobody 'orchestrating' me with this petition. 223 signatures as I write this. Some of them are Labour party members, I googled them, but many more seem to be angry Worcester residents. Perhaps Gregson's henchman are stood behind them with a pistol, but I suspect not.
@High Time . Nobody 'orchestrating' me with this petition. 223 signatures as I write this. Some of them are Labour party members, I googled them, but many more seem to be angry Worcester residents. Perhaps Gregson's henchman are stood behind them with a pistol, but I suspect not. Ted Elgar
  • Score: 4

7:40am Thu 12 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

Anyone see the Worcester Observer last night? Simon and co. want it to look like business as usual. Bayliss and Geraghty clearly gagging to get to Parliament, but presumably not via the Worcester consituency which is likely to fall back into the hands of Labour now the Liberals have gone up in a puff of smoke. Hexham perhaps?
Anyone see the Worcester Observer last night? Simon and co. want it to look like business as usual. Bayliss and Geraghty clearly gagging to get to Parliament, but presumably not via the Worcester consituency which is likely to fall back into the hands of Labour now the Liberals have gone up in a puff of smoke. Hexham perhaps? Ted Elgar
  • Score: 4

9:47am Thu 12 Jun 14

marthajones says...

EnorMouse wrote:
Ted Elgar wrote:
"Perhaps the way the truth is getting twisted in this debate might give an insight as to part of the motivation for Councillor Amos deciding that the Labour Group was no longer for him."

More likely two years was just a very long time for a New Labour convert like Alan... that awkward moment when everyone starts singing the Red Flag on the decking chez-Gregson must have been hard for him.
My reference to 2012 was to Councillor Amos's current term as a Councillor. He stood as the Labour Party candidate for Warndon Ward and was elected in 2008, so in fact he has had six years within the Labour Group.

Perhaps he felt that after six years service to the Party he was entitled to a little more respect than Councillor Riaz, who had crossed the floor from the Conservatives less than a year earlier, yet who was being put forward as the Labour nominee for the post of Deputy Mayor.
When Cllr Bayliss, Switched for personal ambition he became deputy leader, cabinet member, a Safe seat in Claines and a County Council safe seat, ermm.. don't follow your logic. The Message here is CONservatives Reward defectors isn't it? Hence why Alan switched ?
[quote][p][bold]EnorMouse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ted Elgar[/bold] wrote: "Perhaps the way the truth is getting twisted in this debate might give an insight as to part of the motivation for Councillor Amos deciding that the Labour Group was no longer for him." More likely two years was just a very long time for a New Labour convert like Alan... that awkward moment when everyone starts singing the Red Flag on the decking chez-Gregson must have been hard for him.[/p][/quote]My reference to 2012 was to Councillor Amos's current term as a Councillor. He stood as the Labour Party candidate for Warndon Ward and was elected in 2008, so in fact he has had six years within the Labour Group. Perhaps he felt that after six years service to the Party he was entitled to a little more respect than Councillor Riaz, who had crossed the floor from the Conservatives less than a year earlier, yet who was being put forward as the Labour nominee for the post of Deputy Mayor.[/p][/quote]When Cllr Bayliss, Switched for personal ambition he became deputy leader, cabinet member, a Safe seat in Claines and a County Council safe seat, ermm.. don't follow your logic. The Message here is CONservatives Reward defectors isn't it? Hence why Alan switched ? marthajones
  • Score: 3

10:23am Thu 12 Jun 14

Jabbadad says...

Ted Elgar your probably right in saying Baliss and Geraghty would love to move to Westminster, and I would be very happy to help them in any way I can, as they see themselves as MP's in waiting.
Bayliss of course has already failed in Wyre Forest, before his calling into CONservatism, when as a Labour Candidate he unsuccessfully tried to unseat Independent Dr Richard Taylor, now a third term MP.
Ted Elgar your probably right in saying Baliss and Geraghty would love to move to Westminster, and I would be very happy to help them in any way I can, as they see themselves as MP's in waiting. Bayliss of course has already failed in Wyre Forest, before his calling into CONservatism, when as a Labour Candidate he unsuccessfully tried to unseat Independent Dr Richard Taylor, now a third term MP. Jabbadad
  • Score: 3

11:17am Thu 12 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

Sorry marthajones, but I do not have the full inside story on either Cllr. Bayliss or Cllr. Amos. I do know that Cllr. Amos has not joined the Conservatives, but currently accepts no group whip, making him an Independent. Cllr. Bayliss did the same initially, but went on to join the Conservatives a couple of months later.

Cllr. Riaz actually crossed the floor moving directly from the Conservative Group to the Labour Group and the cynical might see his nomination to the post of Deputy Mayor as a reward from Labour for doing so.

With both Cllr. Bayliss and Cllr. Amos at first simply leaving the Labour Group, one is drawn to the natural assumption that they had a problem with Labour, not that they were loured away by the Conservatives.

Sure Cllr. Bayliss went on to join the Conservatives, where his qualities were recognised. Likewise, the Conservative Group has done a deal with Cllr. Amos, as an Independent, just as they were considering deals with the LibDem and Green Party Councillors. It just so happened that the shopping list of Cllr. Amos was a lot cheaper for Worcester residents, than those of the other two.
Sorry marthajones, but I do not have the full inside story on either Cllr. Bayliss or Cllr. Amos. I do know that Cllr. Amos has not joined the Conservatives, but currently accepts no group whip, making him an Independent. Cllr. Bayliss did the same initially, but went on to join the Conservatives a couple of months later. Cllr. Riaz actually crossed the floor moving directly from the Conservative Group to the Labour Group and the cynical might see his nomination to the post of Deputy Mayor as a reward from Labour for doing so. With both Cllr. Bayliss and Cllr. Amos at first simply leaving the Labour Group, one is drawn to the natural assumption that they had a problem with Labour, not that they were loured away by the Conservatives. Sure Cllr. Bayliss went on to join the Conservatives, where his qualities were recognised. Likewise, the Conservative Group has done a deal with Cllr. Amos, as an Independent, just as they were considering deals with the LibDem and Green Party Councillors. It just so happened that the shopping list of Cllr. Amos was a lot cheaper for Worcester residents, than those of the other two. EnorMouse
  • Score: -3

10:38am Sat 14 Jun 14

Ted Elgar says...

Interesting how this thread isn't showing up in the most commented on the front page of the Worcester News. Presumably editorial decided this one should be allowed to die.. which will be comforting to the Conservative group.
230 people have so far signed the petition, but this has slowed. WN not wanting to be seen as pushing traffic onto the petition?
If anyone has a good idea of who should get copies of the completed petition then make requests on here. (I know where they would like me to shove it.. )
Interesting how this thread isn't showing up in the most commented on the front page of the Worcester News. Presumably editorial decided this one should be allowed to die.. which will be comforting to the Conservative group. 230 people have so far signed the petition, but this has slowed. WN not wanting to be seen as pushing traffic onto the petition? If anyone has a good idea of who should get copies of the completed petition then make requests on here. (I know where they would like me to shove it.. ) Ted Elgar
  • Score: 4

11:22am Sat 14 Jun 14

3thinker says...

Me thinks this is all starting to get too partisan and party political.

The simple fact is that what Cllr Amos has done is unprincipled.

He has brought disrespect to the status of mayor. Most importantly his actions undermine public respect for those decent councillors that put their constituents interests before those of self and party.
Me thinks this is all starting to get too partisan and party political. The simple fact is that what Cllr Amos has done is unprincipled. He has brought disrespect to the status of mayor. Most importantly his actions undermine public respect for those decent councillors that put their constituents interests before those of self and party. 3thinker
  • Score: 4

12:22pm Sat 14 Jun 14

Jabbadad says...

Enormouse. IF the transition from Labour to CONservatism had been as you described I can assure you that Bayliss would have been on these columns (which I hear he is following closely) to denounce any errors. So use softer words, call it what you like, Parachuting of councillors or Candidates from one party to another or one Ward to another Safer Ward, is exactly as described on here as DEL-BOY-POLITICS or other well aimed criticisms. It attracts rumours when anyone is being courted, or is politically holding hands in private (as they say). So if you really beleive that your version is how politcs are played out, that is until they get discovered and reported by this Newspaper, then you are either very naive, or just very loyal, to the Party and that is where it all goes wrong when political loyalty comes before the truth or welfare of the people.
What has happened here and previously is of no credit to those involved, particularly when the voters have been treated in such a non-political way.
I trust that come 2015 elections the VOTERS with a little memory jog from this paper and through these colomns will see the errors of these political dealings .
Enormouse. IF the transition from Labour to CONservatism had been as you described I can assure you that Bayliss would have been on these columns (which I hear he is following closely) to denounce any errors. So use softer words, call it what you like, Parachuting of councillors or Candidates from one party to another or one Ward to another Safer Ward, is exactly as described on here as DEL-BOY-POLITICS or other well aimed criticisms. It attracts rumours when anyone is being courted, or is politically holding hands in private (as they say). So if you really beleive that your version is how politcs are played out, that is until they get discovered and reported by this Newspaper, then you are either very naive, or just very loyal, to the Party and that is where it all goes wrong when political loyalty comes before the truth or welfare of the people. What has happened here and previously is of no credit to those involved, particularly when the voters have been treated in such a non-political way. I trust that come 2015 elections the VOTERS with a little memory jog from this paper and through these colomns will see the errors of these political dealings . Jabbadad
  • Score: 4

2:14pm Sat 14 Jun 14

EnorMouse says...

Jabbadad wrote:
Enormouse. IF the transition from Labour to CONservatism had been as you described I can assure you that Bayliss would have been on these columns (which I hear he is following closely) to denounce any errors. So use softer words, call it what you like, Parachuting of councillors or Candidates from one party to another or one Ward to another Safer Ward, is exactly as described on here as DEL-BOY-POLITICS or other well aimed criticisms. It attracts rumours when anyone is being courted, or is politically holding hands in private (as they say). So if you really beleive that your version is how politcs are played out, that is until they get discovered and reported by this Newspaper, then you are either very naive, or just very loyal, to the Party and that is where it all goes wrong when political loyalty comes before the truth or welfare of the people.
What has happened here and previously is of no credit to those involved, particularly when the voters have been treated in such a non-political way.
I trust that come 2015 elections the VOTERS with a little memory jog from this paper and through these colomns will see the errors of these political dealings .
Fine, so Cllr. Riaz is guilty of defecting from the Conservatives to Labour and the Labour Group, in putting him forward as their nomination for Deputy Mayor this year, have brought local politics into disrepute.

Cllr. Amos has resigned from the Labour Group. Why exactly he did this I do not know, but it is pretty clear that they failed to treat him with the respect that he felt was due to himself.

The Conservatives were one short of an overall majority and needed to get the backing of one of the three non-Labour Group Councillors. It seems that both Cllr. Amos and Cllr. Laurenson were willing to give them that backing if their price was met. I do not know what the position of Cllr. Liz Smith was. I understand that she considered the cost of buying Cllr. Laurenson's support was excessive. Nationally the LibDems are in coalition with the Conservatives, but locally, they had put Labour in charge of the City in the previous administration.

Would the Conservatives doing a deal with Cllr. Laurenson have brought local politics into disrepute? If so, did the deal he had previously done with Labour have the same effect? Was giving Cllr. Amos the role of Mayor any worse than giving in to Cllr. Laurenson's shopping list?

I am not about to join a cheer-leading squad for Cllr. Amos, but consider that the Conservative Group acted in the best interest of Worcester residents, as well as themselves and were fully entitled to take control of the Council.
[quote][p][bold]Jabbadad[/bold] wrote: Enormouse. IF the transition from Labour to CONservatism had been as you described I can assure you that Bayliss would have been on these columns (which I hear he is following closely) to denounce any errors. So use softer words, call it what you like, Parachuting of councillors or Candidates from one party to another or one Ward to another Safer Ward, is exactly as described on here as DEL-BOY-POLITICS or other well aimed criticisms. It attracts rumours when anyone is being courted, or is politically holding hands in private (as they say). So if you really beleive that your version is how politcs are played out, that is until they get discovered and reported by this Newspaper, then you are either very naive, or just very loyal, to the Party and that is where it all goes wrong when political loyalty comes before the truth or welfare of the people. What has happened here and previously is of no credit to those involved, particularly when the voters have been treated in such a non-political way. I trust that come 2015 elections the VOTERS with a little memory jog from this paper and through these colomns will see the errors of these political dealings .[/p][/quote]Fine, so Cllr. Riaz is guilty of defecting from the Conservatives to Labour and the Labour Group, in putting him forward as their nomination for Deputy Mayor this year, have brought local politics into disrepute. Cllr. Amos has resigned from the Labour Group. Why exactly he did this I do not know, but it is pretty clear that they failed to treat him with the respect that he felt was due to himself. The Conservatives were one short of an overall majority and needed to get the backing of one of the three non-Labour Group Councillors. It seems that both Cllr. Amos and Cllr. Laurenson were willing to give them that backing if their price was met. I do not know what the position of Cllr. Liz Smith was. I understand that she considered the cost of buying Cllr. Laurenson's support was excessive. Nationally the LibDems are in coalition with the Conservatives, but locally, they had put Labour in charge of the City in the previous administration. Would the Conservatives doing a deal with Cllr. Laurenson have brought local politics into disrepute? If so, did the deal he had previously done with Labour have the same effect? Was giving Cllr. Amos the role of Mayor any worse than giving in to Cllr. Laurenson's shopping list? I am not about to join a cheer-leading squad for Cllr. Amos, but consider that the Conservative Group acted in the best interest of Worcester residents, as well as themselves and were fully entitled to take control of the Council. EnorMouse
  • Score: -4

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree