Manchester Local Election 08: Blogging From Count

Here we go again. Many thanks to Manchester City Council Press Office for squeezing me in once again.

Counts to watch:

Brooklands : Tories always big this up as a prospect. But safe Labour.
Cheetham : Always more exciting when former Deputy Leader Martin Pagel is up. Sham Raja (LD) got hammered last time and Kay Phillips (Respect Renewal) should keep him in his place. Prediction: Comfortable (300-vote) hold for Labour.
Chorlton : Promises to be quite a contest. High turn out. Humungous struggle between well established Cllr Sheila Newman and John Leech's youngster Lianne Williams who has piled a small rain forest of paper through the doors of the ward. Very green I'm sure. Prediction: 150 majority to Labour.
Chorlton Park : Expect a bit of a slump in LD majority thanks to Leech's final retirement from the double job schtick in favour of Bernie "Mad Dog" Ryan. Norman "Shameless" Lewis' girl. It'll still be a weigh in. But there were unprecedented queues at the polling station for the Chorlton part of the ward.
City Centre : Too close to call. If Rob Adlard (Tory) fails here again he'll be out on his ear. Marc Rambo (LD) could take a fall. And Anthony McCaul certainly deserves credit for a great campaign. Green candidate is brand new with no name recognition and may lose votes to Labour. Prediction: Margin of 75 either way LD-Lab. Tories a sad, well beaten third. Increased turnout, particularly from the 4,000students who have barely broken 1% in the past.
Gorton North and South : Potential Labour gains, perhaps not this time, we'll see.
Hulme : Prediction: Labour gain from Green. Good margin (350 votes). After Vanessa Hall cashed in her right-to-buy Council Flat, waved bye bye to her Council Allowance/Maternity Pay, and moved to greener fields.
Longsight : Strongly tipped for a Labour gain.
Miles Platting and Newton Heath : Very odd this one. BNP more or less stodd down their campaign in 2007 and LDs ran Labour within double figures. This time the established BNP candidate has moved elsewhere. Damien O Connor would be back if the LDs win. He has previously been Labour, Independent, and UKIP.
Northenden : Another close run thing. Prediction: Looks like a Labour hold by 100-150 to me. Thanks to the brothers gym in Benchill.
Old Moat : Enlivened by the discovery of 10 (not 12) mysterious proxy voters in a one bedroom flat. Six of them assigned to Cllr Sandiford, Cllr Isherwood, Cllr Cameron; the other four to LD activists. Very strange. The LDs have also fielded Sufiyan N Rana form the Cheetham Hill Ranas. Which is odd given their setting their face against a Muslim candidate in the case of Yasmin Zalzala.
Rusholme : Nahella Ashraf from Left List (Reespect) tries again. Atiha Chaudry may close the gap on Lib Dem Paul B Shannon.
Whalley Range : Fascinating three way struggle between Labour, Lib Dems and Tories each of whom hold one seat. It is the Liberal one that is up. If the Muslim vote breaks three ways as expected the underlying Labour sentiment of the ward should shine through. Prediction: Labour Gain, margin of 150 votes plus.

More BNP action in Higher Blackley (with Derek "Gimp" Adams) and Charlestown (with Stephen "Muppet" Moran).

EXCLUSIVE PIC: Identity Parade, Tory Hothead Retinue

Having lived in Chorlton and Whalley Range for 25 years or so it is hard work to assimilate the news about the Tory tie up with Hizb_ut-Tahrir activists and their seamless distribution of Tory and HuT literature, and allegedly of Tory and HuT threats to boot.

We have worked extremely hard at the Community Unity we have in these areas and in Whalley Range in both 2001 and 2003 I personally worked on a Labour party instigated bi-lingual community unity initiative tied in with a harrassment hotline.

While it would be true that the last of the Tory old guard in the area - the nasty Mr John Kershaw - did have a line in leather coated body guards canvassing with him as recently as 2001 we have never had any great problem with fascist incursions.

Here's one resident who has I believe made a formal complaint to both the police and Tory high ups:

I want to formally complain about Tory activists delivering to households Hiz But al-Tahrir leaflets on Monday 28 April bearing the strapline "there are calls to ban the Qu'ran" along with a Tory leaflet.
Ours is a very delicately balanced neighbourhood and this is stirring up racial division in order to capitalise Tory votes.
Hiz But al Tahris as you probably know has been under discussion for some time, as to whether it's banned for its activities in stimulating racial hatred.
It's sad that for long Manchester has defended its communities against white right wing groups inciting division, and it is now muslim and Tory collusion that have chosen to take the dreaded plunge in Whalley Range."

The above photograph - captioned "Fawad Hussain, out and about listening to the views of local people" is in fact alleged to include amongst the tasty line up some of the very hotheads and bullies who have been operating as described in our exclusive yesterday. Trying to rule the streets and seeking elected influence.

It has been copied from a Tory "in touch" newsletter. Strangely this does not cover the Caliphate, the Palestinian cause, Islamist supremacy, or an insight into HuT's non violence "for the time being". Instead it deals with recycling and a rather misrepresented congestion charge.

Mr GuF: Should the Punishment Fit the Drunken Crime?

Yesterday we reported the sad tale of Paul Staines aka Guido Fawkes aka Mr GuF and his conviction for uninsured drink driving - at almost twice the legal limit. Fourth alcohol related offence and second disqualification for drunken driving in the last few years. Punishments available include £9,000 fines AND three-year disqualification AND six months in jail. But should the punishment fit the crime?

Submersion in the Tower in a Butt of Malmsey perhaps? Or a good session of Lager Boarding (YouTube link, 18 cert), using Lech Polish Export naturally. Image from www.futureofthebook.org.

But riddle-me-ree. Should the utterly bankrupt, convicted drunk, charity commission investigatee, and tax avoider Paul Staines be locked up for six months, increased to nine for bad behaviour, would he lose his tax avoidance status? Methinks GuF will be relying on the "non domiciled" rather than "non resident" loopholes. But further information gratefully received.

Waste Consultation: Short Notice for Focus Group

Phone rings. Would I like to take part in a focus group on waste management tonight in Wythenshawe? At 6pm. On election night? Give me a break. Oh, I never thought of that, said the Council gentleman ...

EXCLUSIVE: Cam's Tories Tandem With Hizb_ut-Tahrir?

Yes, you read that right. Here in Manchester's Whalley Range ward, home of an unearned but so far solitary Tory council seat, through love rat Faraz "Buzz" Bhatti*, we have reports and known police interest in hot-head and strong arm tactics. And in particular in Hizb_ut-Tahrir ("The Party of Liberation") operating on the coat tails of the Tories. Or is it vice versa?

The story of the election in this ward ought to be the Tories quietly stealing say 600 votes from the doomed Cllr Rev Dr John Grant and Labour's Amina Lone making a second gain in the ward in three years. However this bucolic scene has been replaced with something more revolutionary. Tory/HuT activists are it seems distributing leaflets - alongside very dreary Tory material - leaflets that claim as the main strapline that:

"There are calls to ban the Qu'ran"

And on the QT the style of the Tory/HuT campaign seems a bizarre parallel to the ballot plus bootboy approach of the fascists. Quite a step up from Faraz Bhatti's own campaign in 2007 where as a Lib Dem he did we're told employ some of the same "community liaison" tactics. Though the manners were not quite so heavy.

Police have spent three to four hours today interviewing candidates and agents. The claims being made against the Tory/HuT contingent are that allegedly:

1. Tory/HuT threats to local businesses that they'd "take your business down" if Labour (and Lib Dem?) posters were displayed;
2. Tory/HuT hotheads "Steaming". Running into shops and outlets displaying opponents' posters and cleverly ripping them down and running out again;
3. Tory/HuT hotheads telling voters who identified themselves as opposed or displayed posters in their windows that they must take those posters down and vote Tory. That they would know immediately how their votes were cast. That they would "get them back" if they disobeyed;
4. Tory/HuT hotheads systematically telling the 111 most recent Postal Vote applicants (103 being from muslim families) to "hold on until we call round to help you fill it in";
5. Tory/HuT hotheads giving out firebrand "they want to ban the Qur'an" HuT literature in tandem with anaemic Tory efforts;
6. Tory/HuT hotheads giving grief to non-supportive muslim women - often with their children - in the streets in broad daylight;
7. Tory/HuT hothead women being deployed to intimidate women shop workers while men keep a look out outside.

It surely is a brave new Tory world that has such people in it. Meanwhile all is calm on the surface. With Tory/HuT garden posters outnumbering but scarcely distinguishable from estate agent sale boards.

More on this anon. It sure beats a spat from a Tory-supporting Manager about Amir Khan being on a Labour leaflet. We have Tories hooking up with Taleban on the streets of Whalley Range!

* Faraz "Buzz" Bhatti himself being the upholder of the highest Muslim principles having left his wife and kids for an unbelieving woman. And then embarrassed himself and all concerned by arguing with police when they caught him, er, canoodling, in a public car park and favoured dogging spot near Manchester airport. Sadly he dropped his complaint. If the police were "heavy handed" LOL think they should have been pursued for redress, whatever personal cost.

One For the Road: Go to Jail, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect £200

Here's looking ahead to the swear blogger Paul Staines aka Guido Fawkes aka Mr GuF's sentencing for drunk driving on almost twice the legal limit - itself the highest by far in Europe - and driving without any insurance too. This will be on on 14 May 2008. Ministry of Truth carries the salient details right here.

Being his fourth alcohol related conviction and following hard on the heels of a 12-month ban for the same offence the bankrupt Staines could face fines totalling £9,000, a three years ban, and six months in the slammer.

In which case the recent inflation busting raise of £1.50 a week could bring a £39 windfall for the drunken, irresponsible and abusive GuF.

EXCLUSIVE: Lib Dem Mayor Proxy Factory Conspiracy?

My oh my Mr Mayor. This one could be hard to square. The place Old Moat Ward. The premises a one-bed apartment. The registered to vote number twelve adults. Nicely proxied up two-by-two with Lib Dem councillors and the like. Including the most recent ex-Mayor Dr David Sandiford.

The Returning Officer is said to be looking into the matter with great interest. I'm sure there will be a more than adequate explanation for this coincidental co-residence and coincidental inability to vote in person. It looks clumsy perhaps but ex-Mayor Sandiford would never ever ever get involved with anything dodgy.

UPDATE: Fri 10:45: There were only the ten absent voters. The other Lib Dem councillors embroiled in this strange scene were Cllr Cameron and Cllr Isherwood. Cllr Cameron incidentally facing a huge win in Burnage ward still thought it useful to run a "Frank Duffy Defects" story in his material. Frank Duffy being a well respected campaigner and former Labour candidate. It was of course another Frank Duffy that defected.

Tabloid Blogging: From Promoted TV Anchor Dale

Dear old Iain Dale, newly promoted Telegraph TV anchor in need of a GSOH (EGAE!), tabloidises a £1.50 weekly uplift in prisoners wages. That's a 37% rip off for tax payers.

Still, Iain is playing into Gordon Brown's hands which must be cherished. His images host is so incensed at this that they have again pulled the plug which sees him grovelling about his appearance.

Liverpool Shenanigans: Lib Dem Lunacy Exposed

Several bloggers have now reported on an innovative briefing and discussion held by Liverpool's Labour Group leader Joe Anderson as part of a commitment to openness, consultation and partnership. Among the Manchester posse being Stephen Newton, Bill Jones and Graham Whitham whose excellent blog is long overdue a link.

Stephen and Skipper were of course co-conspirators in Iain Dale's Treat. And Joe Anderson's own attack pages at Worst Council in the Country are also well worth a virtual gander across the M6.

Meanwhile it transpires that Cllr Mike "frogmarch officers" Storey - the disgraced ex-Leader, barred from office by Standards, but widely thought of as puppeteer - and Cllr Warren "handbags at election counts" Bradley (the puppet) have been reported to Standards for TWENTY SIX counts of recent breaches of the code of conduct. This alleged perfidy was all accomplished in their all out drive to get Liverpool on its knees.

To one-star status and "worst civic finances" bar none (Cover poster splashes courtesy of the Liverpool Echo) .

While the detail of all these counts should I think remain between the complainants and the Standards Board I do think it would be wrong of me to suppress the contents of a letter passed to me by an admirer and which concerns FIVE of the most serious problems they're up for.

Watch this space for five thrilling instalments.

INDEX: One, Two, Three-Four-Five once I caught some FIBS alive. Why did you let them go? Because they wrecked my city so.

RETIMED FROM 14:24 To form index.

Liverpool Shenanigans: Five, Once I Caught a Fish Alive

5) Cllr Bradley required that the internal investigation report into Mathew Street should be changed before it was made public. It is clear now that he did not believe the report to be accurate (his emails suggest that he personally does not blame Lee Forde but blames ‘others’ - presumably Jason Harborow. Mr Forde may be able to shed more light on this. )

Requiring the releasing of a report which, in part, publicly blames an individual, whilst the Leader of the Council did not believe it to be accurate, had two effects. First, it unjustifiably destroyed or damaged the reputation and thus the career prospects of Mr Forde (I understand that Mr Forde has found obtaining work more difficult since the report was published).

Secondly, this conduct may expose the Council to a claim for defamation.
i) Councillor Bradley is in breach of Clause 5 of the Code of Conduct in that his actions in saying one thing, but then doing another, could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office as Leader of the Council and/or his authority into disrepute.
ii) Councillor Bradley is in breach of Clause 3 (1) of the Code in that he failed to treat Mr Forde with respect by publicly blaming him for failings over Mathew Street and then, two days later, holding a meeting with Mr Forde in which he sought to involve him in a conspiracy against Mr Harborow.

In total, Councillor Bradley and Storey have breached the Code of Conduct 26 times.

Such consistent, flagrant and repeated breaches of the Code of Conduct have brought the leader of the council, the Executive Member, the authority and, more importantly, the city of Liverpool, into disrepute and public contempt. The behaviour of Councillors Bradley and Storey has been without honour, integrity or transparency. They have abused their positions, abused employees and abused the people of Liverpool who they are meant to serve. They have been dishonest, underhand and disrespectful both of individuals and of the organisation they serve.

I believe the Standards Board should impose the maximum penalty possible as an example and a warning to others that we expect and demand higher standards from our elected representatives..

The following documents may be useful to your further investigation. I suggest that you contact the city council to request them. I have been assured that they will be provided.

a) Letters sent by the city solicitor to Councillors Bradley and Storey warning them of their conduct in relation to press statements about Mr Harborow.

b) The claim form from Mr Harborow’s solicitors claiming unlawful conduct/constructive dismissal and setting out their reasoning.

c) The City Council’s independent legal advice which sets out reasons why the Council’s position is legally vulnerable as a result of Cllr Bradley and Storey’s conduct, justifying a payment of compensation to protect the Council’s exposed position. I understand that this advice was provided to the appointments sub committee by the Chief Executive and according to press reports formed part of the basis for the Council offering Mr Harborow compensation. I have been informed by the chief executive that this will be made available to the Standards Board on request.

d) A copy of the speech made by Cllr Bradley to the full Council on 12/12/07 (although the speech was made orally, it was read out from a prepared text by Cllr Bradley who will, no doubt, still have a copy).

This speech appears to suggest that Cllr Bradley had held a number of meetings with Lee Forde when he was still a Council employee to discuss the internal management of the Culture Company – presumably a reference to Jason Harborow’s perceived failure to manage the Culture Company. This would also mean that Councillor Bradley is in breach of Clause 3 (2) (d) in compromising Mr Forde’s impartiality as a council employee. The speech provides further evidence of Councillor Bradley lying about his contact with the Daily Post reporter, Mr Bartlett.

In addition, can I also request that further evidence is sought from Mr David Bartlett, reporter, Liverpool Daily Post, Mr Mark Thomas, editor, Liverpool Daily Post, Mr Lee Forde, and Mr Jason Harborow.

Yours faithfully,

Liverpool Shenanigans: Charge Four's A Corker

4) Cllr Bradley has repeatedly and deliberately lied to the Council, public and press over his involvement in this sorry affair.

Cllr Bradley initially and repeatedly denied to David Bartlett, a Daily Post reporter that he had met Mr Forde. The reporter has a verbatim transcript of this telephone interview.

Cllr Bradley subsequently admitted the meeting had occurred when the Daily Post revealed they had a copy of his e-mail to Mr Forde initiating the meeting.

Cllr Bradley subsequently then denied that he had ever denied having met Mr Forde. The Daily Post have rejected Cllr Bradley’s version of events, which he repeated oublicly to the full council, both verbally and in writing.

Cllr Bradley then claimed in the press that he had informed the Chief Executive about the contents of the meeting with Mr Forde. Mr Hilton categorically and specifically refutes this claim in his letter to me.

Cllr Bradley claimed that he had first received a text message from Mr Forde requesting the meeting. Copies of Mr Forde’s itemised phone bill clearly show that Mr Forde only texted Councillor Bradley after receiving e-mails from Councillor Bradley setting up the meeting.

i) Councillor Bradley is in breach of Clause 3) (i) in that he has wrongly and publicly questioned the veracity of a journalist’s account of an interview. I will leave the Standards Board to make its own judgement about what this reveals about the character of the man.
ii) Councillor Bradley is in breach of 3) (c) (ii) in that he has attempted to intimidate the journalist concerned, a potential witness in this investigation, by refusing to speak to him in future and communicating only by email. Again, the Standards Board will make its own judgement about what this reveals about Councillor Bradley’s character.
iii) Councillor Bradley is breach of Clause 5 by wrongly denying that he had met Mr Forde.
iv) Councillor Bradley is in breach of Clause 5 by wrongly denying that he had denied meeting Mr Forde.
v) Councillor Bradley is in breach of Clause 5 by wrongly claiming he had informed the chief executive of the meeting.
vi) Councillor Bradley is in breach of Clause 5 by wrongly claiming that Mr Forde had instigated the meeting.

Liverpool Shenanigans: Charge Three's A Crowd

3) Cllrs Bradley and Storey have both made comments in the media about Mr Harborow in his role as Chief Executive of the Culture Company in particular, and in relation to the Mathew Street Festival cancellation and subsequent report.
These behaviours undermine the Officer concerned and would place the Council in a serious legal position if the Officer concerned had sought legal advice, about unfair and/or critical public comments made about him.

For information, my Deputy Leader, Councillor Paul Brant warned of such a risk in a letter to the Acting City Solicitor and Monitoring Officer Mr Kenworthy, the Head of Finance Mr Phil Halsall and to the Chief Executive and Head of the paid service Colin Hilton - as the three officers with special statutory duties to protect the interests of the Council.

He set out our concerns about the behaviour of the two councillors. It was made clear that this could, and would, be perceived as bullying and intimidation.

Cllr Brant was subsequently told by email that the matter was already being considered by the Monitoring Officer and Chief Finance Officer.

Subsequently, it was confirmed that Cllr’s Bradley and Storey had been warned by the officers about their conduct in putting the Council at risk. No doubt you will seek the various email traffic related to this topic and obtain a full version of events from the Officers in due course.

i) Councillor Bradley breached Clause 5 of the Code and brought his position and authority into disrepute by publicly critiscising an officer of the council.
ii) Councillor Storey breached Clause 5 of the Code and brought his position and authority into disrepute by publicly critiscising an officer of the council.
iii) Councillor Bradley breached Paragraph 3 of the Code by failing to treat Mr Harborow with respect by publicly demanding he should be relieved of his duties.
iv) Councillor Bradley breached Paragraph 3 of the Code by seeking to involve Mr Forde in an attempted conspiracy to remove a current council employee (Mr Harborow).
v) Councillor Bradley breached Clause 7 (1) (a) and (b) by ignoring the advice of the Chief Finance Officer and Monitoring Officer in making repeated statements to the media which were critical of Mr Harborow.

Liverpool Shenanigans: Charge Two and Counting

2) Councillors Bradley and Storey met privately with a former employee of the City Council, Mr Forde, who was, at that time, pursuing a claim for constructive dismissal against the city council. This was most irregular and quite improper.
Mr Forde alleges that at this meeting, Cllr Bradley, with Councillor Storey’s compliance, sought information regarding Mr Harborow in relation to the Culture Company. Councillor Bradley is conspiring to undermine Mr Harborow by seeking information which would damage him. At this time, the Leader of the Council had promised an independent internal enquiry into the cause of the Mathew Street cancellation. If there was no improper motive for this meeting, it is unclear why Mr Forde was not simply instructed to provide any information directly to the internal audit enquiry conducting the investigation. No doubt you will speak to Mr Forde direct and hear about the contents of the meeting and at whose instigation it occurred (see below).

i) Councillor Bradley is in breach of Clause 3 (1) of the Code in that he failed to treat Mr Forde with respect. Two days before this extraordinary meeting, Councillor Bradley had publicly endorsed a council report which critiscised (unfairly in my view) Mr Forde’s conduct. It was disrespectful to Mr Forde for Councillor Bradley to seek such a meeting, unless for the purposes of offering an apology, explanation or retraction. He made no such offer, according to Mr Forde.
ii) Councillor Bradley is in breach of Clause 5 of the Code in that, as Leader of the city council, he conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute by initiating a secret meeting with Mr Forde, who was pursuing legal action against the city council.
iii) Councillor Storey is in Breach of Clause 5 of the Code in that, as an Executive Member of the city council, he conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute by being present throughout a secret meeting with Mr Forde, who was pursuing legal action against the city council.
At no time did Councillor Storey absent himself from this lengthy meeting or voice any objections to the way proceedings were being conducted by Councillor Bradley.
The Board may consider this specific breach to be amongst the most serious since Councillor Storey has previously been found guilty by the Standards Board of bringing his office into disrepute. The investigating officer may therefore consider it helpful and relevant for the hearing to consider relevant papers from Councillor Storey’s earlier breach of the Code. The action taken by the Standards Board then had clearly failed to encourage better standards of behaviour by Councillor Storey. He has a previous record for this behaviour - and does not appear either to have learnt his lesson, or reformed.
iv) Councillor Bradley is in Breach of Clause 5 of the Code in that he asked Mr Forde for information about Mr Harborow which he could use against the chief executive of the Culture Company. Councillor Bradley conducted himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute.
v) Councillor Storey is in breach of Clause 5 of the Code in that, although Mr Forde provides no evidence that Councillor Storey directly asked for information about Mr Harborow, he was nevertheless, party to an attempted conspiracy to undermine Mr Harborow and remove him from office.
Councillor Storey subsequently failed to notify any officer of the council about the secret meeting with Mr Forde, or the terms of the discussion which took place.

Liverpool Shenanigans: Preamble and Charge One

Dear Ms Farrand

Ref-SBE20494.07 – SBE20495.07

I refer to my recent complaint about breaches of the Code of Conduct by Councillor Warren Bradley, Leader of Liverpool city council and Councillor Mike Storey, Executive Member for Regeneration.

There are a number of issues which I would like to amplify in regard to the information which I have already provided. There is also some further information which I believe is important and relevant to your investigation, which Liverpool City Council have assured me they will provide to the Standards Board, on request. I set out details of this further below.

There are five specific areas where I believe Councillor Bradley has repeatedly breached the Code of Conduct.
1) Councillor Bradley’s email to Mr Colin Hilton, Chief Executive, and copied to every member of the controlling group, in which he demanded that Jason Harborow, Chief Executive of the Liverpool Culture Company and Executive Director for Culture, Media and Sport, should be immediately relieved of his duties.
This instruction, if followed, would have effectively suspended an employee who was at that stage not even subject to an allegation of improper conduct.

The instruction was clearly motivated, on Councillor Bradley’s own admission, by a desire for him to protect his reputation by being seen ‘to be strong’ in the media and to act decisively. It will be noted that Cllr Bradley was being heavily criticised in the media for the cancellation of the Mathew Street Festival. It appears that Councillor Bradley was attempting to divert some of the focus of the criticism to an employee.

Further, if the Chief Executive of the Council had acted upon this ‘instruction’, it would have been in breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence between an employer and Mr Harborow as an employee. It could have resulted in the Council acting unlawfully and being exposed to a legal claim from Mr Harborow.

It is to be noted that the subsequent internal enquiry conducted by the Internal Audit Team of the Council made no critiscism of Mr Harborow for the Festival’s cancellation.

The Chief Executive of the Council refused to follow Cllr Bradley’s instruction. No doubt you will wish to establish the reasons why.
In summary, this email communication provides clear evidence that Councillor Bradley was attempting, quite improperly, to interfere in internal staffing matters within the city council.
i) Councillor Bradley is in breach of Clause 5 of the Code of Conduct in that his actions in writing such an email, demanding the removal of a serving officer, and then circulating it widely to his own political group, could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office as Leader of the Council and/or his authority into disrepute.
ii) Councillor Bradley is in breach of Clause 6 of the Code, in that his email clearly reveals that he attempted to improperly use his position as Leader to confer a disadvantage on Mr Harborow, by publicly demanding his immediate suspension and by copying his email to every member of the controlling group. In short, Councillor Bradley sought to undermine Mr Harborow’s position.
You may also wish to investigate separately whether Councillor Bradley was improperly trying to confer an advantage on the three council employees named in the email who he demanded should fill the breach left by Mr Harborow’s enforced absence. No explanation is given for Councillor Bradley’s specific choice of certain officers.
iii) Councillor Bradley is in breach of Clause 6 of the Code in alleging to both Mr Hilton and all the members of his group, that Mr Forde was on ‘gardening leave’. There is no mention or provision whatsoever for ‘gardening leave’ within the city council’s rules, regulations or procedures. For further clarification, Mr Forde was never suspended from duty.
In using the clearly pejorative and wholly incorrect term of ‘gardening leave’ and copying his email to his political group, Councillor Bradley was deliberately attempting to confer a very specific disadvantage on Mr Forde as a serving council employee. Mr Forde was never put on ‘gardening leave’, or suspended. In short, in using this term, Councillor Bradley also sought to undermine Mr Forde’s position as a council employee.
iv) Councillor Bradley is in breach of Clause 8 b) of the Code in that, by his own admission, he had a personal interest in the subject being discussed in his email to Mr Hilton. Councillor Bradley’s email reveals that one of his prime motivations in demanding that Mr Harborow should be relieved of his duties, was his (Councillor Bradley’s) own well-being.
Councillor Bradley states in his email that: “I have a responsibility to be seen to be strong, whilst being fair and honest.
“I have taken, extremely unfairly, the brunt of the criticism, and am now requesting this decisive move prior to your leave.”
These are personal descriptions, directly connected to Councillor Bradley’s personal well-being. They are being used to justify his interference in the city council’s own internal personnel matters - the subject being discussed. These personal motivations form no part of the Leader of the Council’s statutory duties or responsibilities – the term Councillor Bradley himself mistakenly uses.
In short, Councillor Bradley was demanding that a serving council officer, Mr Harborow, be relieved of his duties, because Councillor Bradley had been ‘unfairly’ critiscised. His interest is entirely personal. The Investigating Officer may take the view that this also accounts for Councillor Bradley circulating his email..
He was attempting to portray himself to his own political group, no doubt, as ‘strong, fair and honest’ when all of his behaviour demonstrated quite the opposite.
v) Councillor Bradley is in breach of Paragraph 3 of the Code in that his email demands compromise the impartiality of those who work for the authority, specifically the Chief Executive.
The chief executive had already begun an ‘independent’ enquiry into the circumstances of the cancellation of the Mathew Street Festival 2007.
In demanding that Mr Harborow should be relieved of his duties and replaced, and in further alleging, wrongly, that Mr Forde was on ‘gardening leave’ – a condition which does not exist within the council’s own procedures, Councillor Bradley was attempting to influence and prejudice the outcome of the ‘independent’ investigation being conducted by the chief executive.
vi) Councillor Bradley is in breach of Clause 5 of the Code in bringing his authority into disrepute by circulating an email in such inflammatory and prejudicial terms to the controlling group. Councillor Bradley was attempting to prejudge the outcome of the ‘independent ‘investigation, which could have led to disciplinary hearings being conducted against council employees, including Mr Harborow, in particular, or Mr Forde.
Those disciplinary hearings would, of course, have involved members of Councillor Bradley’s own group, who had been circulated with the email.
vii) Councillor Bradley is in breach of paragraph 3 of the Code in that, in both the tone and content of his email, he attempts to bully and intimidate the chief executive into complying with his demands before he goes on leave the following day. Councillor Bradley’s email to Mr Hilton concludes threateningly: “In conclusion, nothing short of my request will be deemed acceptable.”
viii) Councillor Bradley is in breach of Paragraph 4 of the Code in that he disclosed confidential information which he had acquired.
He refers to “as agreed yesterday, Ben Dolan should be installed as the interim manager to oversee the full operation of Liverpool Culture Company.
“Whilst Chris Briggs should be appointed to lead on CMS (culture, media and sport), with Stuart Smith regaining the ED (executive director) responsibility.”
This series of highly specific and quite irregular managerial instructions would appear to refer to a private discussion concerning no less than five individual council employees which had apparently previously taken place with the chief executive. Councillor Bradley’s email discloses the specific terms of this confidential discussion to every member of his political group.

Immigration and Borders Agency: Time Travel Needed

An interesting missive arrives for Tarus. I open it as - although no one in the household has signed for it - it has a "to be signed for" sticker on it. Clearly important. It states that Tarus must attend and sign on 25 April 2008 or there might be trouble.

The letter is dated 23 April 2008. The postmark? 28 April 2008. He is off for a few days training, but when I catch up with him I'll explain that as an illegal alien he'll simply have to get into his time travel capsule to comply with the important government instruction.

There is more to this story than this mere ridiculousness but dear reader I'll keep the rest between myself, Tarus, our MP, and the Home Office for the time being.

London: Ken Livingstone's Message to London

Where is Boris's equivalent to this message to Londoners?

Telegraph TV: Iain Dale's Constructive Dismissal

Full story, as ever, at Iain Dale's Diary.

Those Private Blogs: Invitations Please RP and LW

Ridiculous Politics have followed Labour Watch in going all shy and bashful - by invitation only - if either of these fine emporia would like to extend invitations to myself you'll not regret it.

Lib Dem Lies: Are They Using These Fibs Nationwide?

Part of the small rain forest of mendacity received from the Lib Dems this morning was a letter to my partner about "Labour's Tax Hike". This was strikingly misleading and signed in a childish hand by the candidate who appears on the top in a polka dot dress. Not an obviously well qualified commentator on Labour tax changes.

But let's not make this a personal attack. The leaflet enclosed with the letter has the air of being something Hywel "Rifleshot Leaflets" Morgan and the other clowns at Cowley Street have dashed off for cut and paste around the country. Even badder than one of Hywel's cut and paste one-shape-fits-all bar charts.

It carries a small table with five different categories of victims of "Labour's tax hike hitlist":


Not one line in this table stands up to even cursory scrutiny. Two of them are particularly outrageous. No-one wants to lose on a tax change. But it looks impossible to lose anything like the amounts quoted down the right hand side whatever exact income one has.

Single, No Children If you are single, no children and earn £17,999 you don't lose £300 as the table states. In fact on the back of an envelope basis you might be £10 or so better off. And the worst case is about £90£180 worse off.

Childless Couple, One Working If you are a childless couple with one working, earning "under £8,000" you could stay the same or perhaps lose a little. Perhaps around £90£180. But the famous back of the envelope basis does not reveal a single case which could possibly be £232 worse off.

Family with Children, Both Parents Work, Combined Income £8,000 The third scenario is quite frankly the most ridiculous of the lot. If you are a family with children where both parents work and with a combined income of under £8,000 you are more than £2,000 shy of paying any tax at all. Never mind a ludicrous £446 worse off.

Retired Women 60-64 on £8,000 The fourth one is just a tiny bit closer to the truth. But don't rely on it. One would lose about £100 on the first £2,000 after the individual allowance. And gain about a couple of pounds on the balance. Again it's about £90£180 at worst.

Early Retiree on £8,000 This fifth one also computes I think to about £90£180, not the £232 quoted by the lying Lib Dems.

The table ignores benefits completely. And the £90£180 maximum potential losses on the back of my envelope do too. Also that Gordon Brown has promised to fix these unintended consequences. Which he could do with an extra £500-£1000 individual allowance for those affected and/or by extending benefits to them. UPDATE: The latter being more attractive as it would be hard to justify an extra £1000 allowance for these groups alone.

Could Lib Dem Finance Spokesman Vince Cable MP and the mischievious idiots responsible for this catalogue of scaremongering fibs make an immediate and vociferous apology for such a pile of Lib Dem arithmetic nonsense?

It is bad enough for people to lose £90 a year at these sorts of incomes - even if presented as "no longer gain an extra £90 bonus" and even if largely compensated by benefits and rebates - but there really is no excuse for such ridiculous misrepresentations as these.

If they actually believe the figures themselves it is not difficult to see how Lib Dem Liverpool have got into a situation where a 5% Council Tax Hike and £62 Million of cuts in public services are needed to "balance" their budget.

Could anyone who has seen the same table reproduced in their area leave a comment or send an email to idea@mcr1.poptel.org.uk. Scans welcome. Thanks.

Here's Lie-Anne's sign off. You couldn't make it up. Well you could actually. And she actually has. What a cheeky fibber she is.



UPDATE: Apparently the Daily Mail ran the very same lies as Lie-Anne on the tax losses. And Hywel Morgan has never worked at Cowley Street and played no part - for the party centrally - in this election. Though he did write Lib Dem campaigning manuals about Rifleshot Leaflets, Barmy Bar Charts, Lying and Cheating in Elections and the like. Apologies Hywel.

UPDATE TWO: Having reviewed both The Daily Mail figures and the back of my own envelope I come to this conclusion, posted there as a comment:

The figures in your table are UTTERLY WRONG surely? There is no loss at all for a couple earning £8000 between them. And while the maximum loss for any of the other four categories is perhaps £200 a single worker earning £18,000 would lose nothing or come out slightly ahead in fact.
Rough workings: Lose £200 by extra tax on income between £5300 and £7400 ... gain £2 per £100 thereafter. So £10,000 later - approximately £17400 - quits. Thereafter start slowly but surely to gain.
The gimmick of not factoring in benefits and rebates is pretty pathetic too.

On that last point it is the case that The Mail's table is clearly marked that the figures don't account for benefits. The Fib Dems one however carries the same howlers - particularly on the single worker, which is grossly exaggerated, and the couple with combined £8000 which is completely wrong - but the warning about Benefits has been redacted. The Fib Dems also fail to acknowledge their utterly unreliable source.

Meanwhile I must concede that ignoring benefits the other three categories could lose somewhere between my optimistic £90 and the very pessimistic Lib Dem/Daily Mail figures. I needed a bigger envelope to scribble on it seems.

Chorlton Libdemologists: False Claims on Greenery

Hopi Sen catches Dave Cameron's conservatives at a Warm Front con in which Cam claims credit for good Labour work.

Spotting something coming and taking credit by calling for it is not exactly a new tactic. But today the hilariously un-Green local Lib Dems stuck a small rain forest of paper and an oil well of ink through the door with one of the most clumsy attempts to take credit where credit isn't due I've ever seen.

"Lianne wins Plastic and Cardboard recycling" screams the headline. The small prints claims the Council had no plans in this area and no budget. In fact such matters have been under discussion for years.

Clearly anyone with half a brain would admit that dealing with recycling in urban areas of great multiple deprivation where dealing with poverty has been a day-to-day priority for many residents is harder than in a leafy borough. But instead of comparing Manchester with the comparable but hilariously bad Lib Dem "10 years misrule show case" of Liverpool the dissembling Lib Dems avert their eyes from that disaster.

Then Lianne slams a £200,000 city-wide consultation exercise to determine where the demand lies for these card board and plastic recycling services and how the people would prefer them to be delivered.

Yes, that's right. Labour haven't had plans for this for years, but have planned and carried out a consultation on detailed implementation, but then again have only thought of this since Lianne starting coming in from Didsbury for photo opportunities.

On the reverse of the leaflet Lianne claims credit for 31 pieces of "hard work". Every single one of them appears to have been actually achieved or is being achieved by others.

It may be that some have involved a letter at some point - usually after the fact - from the Hospital Hoax MP. Or that Lianne has sat silent in a meeting as the MP's representative while something or other has been agreed.

Even perhaps a letter with Lianne's parliamentary email address as a contact. Yes, that's right Leech has given this fibber wages - from taxpayers and/or council tax payers - and access to parliamentary facilities to support her false claims of action.

But responsible for these things? No way. Responsible only for a veritable mountain of paper making false claims and professing to be "green".

This leaflet comes on top of the Lib Dem hissy fit that Labour have organised a market in Chorlton - as part of a long standing city-wide programme - without waiting for them to sign off on it!

Just to underline the Lib Dems un-Green credentials they posted double helpings of their double sided A3 leaflet, plus two sheets of A4, and a window envelope through our door in one drop. Meanwhile in a highly innovative move Labour locally are giving residents the option to opt out of any and all paper communications in future.

JOHN LEECH PRINT SERVICES MYSTERY: We are still waiting for an answer on the conundrum of professional printing of high level of technical difficulty allegedly emanating from a back room at a parliamentary office.