Cabinet at War?

 Only cave dwellers could have failed to notice the battles within the Tory Party in recent weeks, but talk is that an equally unedifying, if rather less meaningful squabble is taking place closer to home.

Rumour has it that discontent about the special privileges and protections allegedly afforded to Emma Hoddinott by partner Chris Read, alongside her long running, and, so it’s said, costly, review of waste services recently bubbled to the surface in the form of a debate within Labour Group about how the Leader selects Cabinet members. Just as well for Read that Cabinet members were seemingly able to vote, given the reportedly narrow margin in favour of the status quo. Because that means that Read will continue to have carte blanche to appoint whoever he chooses. Just like in the Stone Age. I’ve heard that Read and Hoddinott were out-grinning the Cheshire Cat in the days following the meeting, And well they might. For Hodds gets to keep her Special Responsibility Allowance of just shy of £13,000 for buggering about with the bins, and that bumps up the couple’s combined allowances to a rather splendid £61,448.

But Theresa May’s current predicament demonstrates the difficulty posed by restive back benchers, and Town Hall tittle tattle suggests Read might be contemplating throwing a bone to his, in the form of a Cabinet re-shuffle in the not too distant future. According to some sources, the odds are shortening on Taiba Yasseen being for the chop. Such a move would undoubtedly please those who absorbed the messages about where unchallenged political correctness can lead, but it would have the added advantage of quietly removing Hoddinott’s Cabinet rival in the unseemly tussle to be princess of community cohesion in central Rotherham.

The gossip certainly provides an interesting backdrop to the following motion from Yasseen’s Boston Castle ward to Rotherham CLP. Was this perhaps a crude attempt to undermine the Cabinet member with responsibility for community safety? Was Yasseen doing a Boris, so to speak?

Brooklyn Bridge.

The following motion has been submitted by Boston Castle Ward for consideration as an emergency motion at the CLP meeting on 12th October:

Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) was agreed by Rotherham Council on 11th September 2017, which covers both the Rotherham Town Centre and Clifton Park. Specifically we are challenging the inclusion of Clifton Park as part of this Order without proper and inclusive consultation with the communities and groups that use the park.
In the implementation of the decision made by the Borough Council: it is clear that the real issues of concern is the harm that will be done by grouping responsible dog walkers at Clifton Park with those that are socially irresponsible (those who spit, urinate, misuse drugs, throw litter etc). Users, community and dog walkers of the Park are angry, disappointed and insulted by being included in this anti-social group.
Dog walkers in common with all responsible citizens of Rotherham are appalled by all anti-social behaviour in Rotherham. We want to support our Council in improving the lived social experience of all Rotherham citizens but strongly feel that including Clifton Park and specifically dog owners in this way would undermine PSPO.
One of the main concerns was the council’s use of the ‘legal minimum requirement for consultation’ (which took place in July/Aug the height of the holiday period – leaving dog walkers and users of the park totally unaware of the consultation). This under-hand action is something that will divide our communities and is what many of us would expect from the Tory Party – while expecting the Labour Party to take on board the sensibilities of the local communities and the LGA guidance about best practice when consulting during holiday periods.
Our branch feels that this Order will further jeopardise the goodwill of local people and will damage community cohesion in the town unnecessarily. This is because those with a real stake in the use of Clifton park were not adequately consulted.
We urge the CLP to support Boston Castle Labour Party branch in lobbying to ensure the following:
1. To stop the direct link between Town Centre anti-social behaviour issues; and those of Clifton Park.
2. To exclude Clifton Park from the order, for the reasons above.
If 1 and 2 cannot be supported then, we also seek:
3. After 6 months (in March ’18) seek real consultation with all stake holders of Clifton Park. One that will include all those who use Clifton Park – including dog owners.
4. To take cognisance of the outcomes of the 6 month review.
5.By-laws regarding inappropriate drinking and all anti-social behaviour would of course remain in force as there are already existing laws addressing these issues.

Readers might like to view this post: The Emma and Chris posts

13 thoughts on “Cabinet at War?

    • Jobs for boys snouts in the troff Liebor when will the people in Rotherham learn. They are pocketing taxpayer moneys while eastwood goe up in flames and kids are stil getting aboused on streets, shame on them.


  1. It about time some good princepled socialist councillors stood up for boston ward and did the right thing at least someone out there in rotherham has some guts to stand up to this lot


  2. Good principled socialist councillors, who are they? The majority would not know the definition of socialism, they all bought their own council houses and more besides now most are landlords. Nothing to choose between that lot and Ian Lavrey.


  3. As the acting chair at the Boston Castle ward meeting which put together the emergency motion about Clifton Park, I can assure your readers that it came from ordinary ward members who live close to the park and/or are regular visitors to it. Their concern was that measures put is place to combat anti social behaviour in the town centre was being inappropriately applied to Clifton Park. No criticism of any individual elected member was expressed or implied. This was the rank and file speaking out.


  4. This is nothing to do with dog walking. Historically, a number of sources have identified Clifton Park as a hanging out and pick spot used by Mirpuri men/youths.

    Boys, and girls will be boys and girls. However it has also been recognized as location where eventually abusive and exploitative relationships have begun. Or more simply it is where some pimps meet their victims , and their clients meet the.

    This is the real reason why the Council Officers want it in the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) as it gives them power to move people on ..but of course in a world where language is twisted to meet a political agenda no one dare call out this particular truth. Doing such things gets your mike turned off at Council meetings.

    Oh…and this was pushed through as an emergency motion. Meaning ward members weren’t informed in advance of the meeting. Seems everything in Boston Castle Ward is an emergency, even closing doors after the horse has bolted.

    Can someone explain how one can have an emergency motion to oppose a Council decision that has already been taken? Of course the reality is that Taiba must have known the motion was meaningless, so one must wonder who she was pandering to.

    And lastly, the early comment about this motion coming from ordinary members..
    this is of course dog s**t

    Onewhoknows…but not a lot:)


    • As far as I am aware all three of them were selected into various positions over the years ( including that of councillor) purely because of their background or gender.They rig their own party elections, mosque controls local vote and the leader of the council knows this only too well, its cash for votes plain and simple. sounds to me like those three are upping their price.


  5. A fact, Clifton Park has been a location of the grooming and abuse of children by criminals from the Pakistani Muslim community, having the park included in the PSPO makes perfect sense that is unless you are attempting to protect the criminals.

    There are those fateful words again, community cohesion, anyone remember how that PC phrase was used to provide top cover for men abusing children?

    Why would the Boston ward act to prevent the PSPO covering the known location for the abuse of children?

    Another Labour sop to the Pakistani criminals?


  6. Pingback: New order comes in to force in Rotherham town centre | Rotherham Politics

  7. Pingback: The Week That Was – Last Weeks Top Ten 28th October 2017 | Rotherham Politics

Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.