‘Tiser – Good News for Rotherham’s Green Belt!

Rotherham’s gem, the ‘Tiser, brings us this encouraging sign that ‘people power’ is beginning to bear fruit:

Rotherham Council set to consult again over green belt housing

Published date: 03 February 2012 | Published by: Gareth Dennison

MORE than 7,000 people have swamped Rotherham Borough Council with comments on plans to build thousands of new homes.

Now councillors have promised to look yet again at revising targets for new housing under Rotherham’s Local Development Framework——a 15-year plan designating various areas for housing and industrial use. Read on……………

Who has trodden on Kevin’s corns?

Kevin Barron, remember him? Readers rarely hear about him on Rotherham Politics. He is the MP for Rother Valley and normally absent from Rotherham’s very own newspaper of record, the Advertiser. Outside of election periods, that is? Clearly irritated, Kevin wrote an ill tempered letter of response published in this weeks edition, a rarity indeed!

What can have aroused him to the extent that he breaks his normal vow of silence? A letter the previous week, authored by Dave Smith, who resides in Dinnington and a constituent of Kevin, was the catalyst. I quote:

Back the strikers

Sir – I for one will be standing four square behind the public sector workers when they strike at the end of this month. Also I would urge the private sector workers to do the same.

Do not fall for the Government propaganda that the public sector have a far better pension scheme than the rest of us. It is an old trick used by politicians, including Hitler.

They point the finger at others and blame them for the ills visited on the rest of us by these same politicians.

These MPs who would have us believe that we the taxpayers are footing the bill for the public sector’s “wonderful” pension and that we need to attack them in order for the country to save money, should come clean about the millions we are paying for them to have a far superior pension than the ordinary worker.

Plus, we are paying full prime ministerial salaries to at least five ex-prime ministers.

Let’s just take one small section of these MPs’ pension scheme, ill health retirement. Well, it is a very hard job you know.

It is paid based on final salary and paid as if  the person had paid full contributions until the age of 65, no matter how young they are when they take it.

How many are their out there, public or private, have that provision in your pension scheme? We miners certainly did not.

I would say to the public sector workers don’t be surprised that the leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party won’t support you.

They do not have the political will to defend the people whose ancestors risked everything to not only build the trade union movement but also the Labour Party.

Without these brave people Miliband and his cohorts would not be sitting in their cushy jobs and luxury life style.You only have to look at recent history to know how these people think about us.

Take Neil Kinnock and his Parliamentary secretary, Kevin Barron, and their performance during the miners’ strike.

Kinnock comes from a mining background and Barron was a miner, but  that didn’t stop them spending more time attacking us than defending us.

So, private sector, do not be conned and public sector stay strong.

Dave Smith, Dinnington

Dave Smith offered Kevin, not a delicate dry fly, presented carefully to a wary Trout, but a whacking great lure, huge and gaudy and presented with no finesse at all and he got the arm twisting take, that Trout fishermen everywhere dream of. I had Kevin figured, as a member of the ‘wary old’ category myself but nothing surprises me any more.

In colloquial speak, he seems to have, ‘gone off like a Muppet’!

From Kevin Barron’s letter, I quote:

Stood up for miners

“I would firstly like to point out that I was not Neil Kinnock’s Parliamentary Private Secretary during the miners’ strike”

“my analysis of what happened in the strike is not clouded by involvement with Trotskyist organisations.”

“I have always stood up for coal miners and coal mining communities. I was active in the cause of keeping Dinnington Colliery open many months after Mr Smith had taken his redundancy money and run.”

It is true, that Kevin did not achieve the lofty title of bag carrier to the Leader of the Opposition, Neil Kinnock, until 1985, safely after the strike was over. Paltry reward, you might think?

Kevin it should not be forgotten was a fully paid up ‘Scargillite’, a true believer! At least, that is, until his election in 1983. Which was accomplished it is said, with the personal help of Arthur, no less! That might alone explain the enmity expressed as Stalinists/Leninists and Trotskyists have not got on since the unfortunate incident with an ice pick!

In the early days, he was happy spouting ultra leftist propaganda at every meeting he went to and he used to turn up at an awful lot of meetings. I rather naively thought this indicated keenness until I was told, by a Trot as it happens, that NUM members were likely getting paid for their attendance at the meetings they went to. They never did ‘owt for nowt’.

The NUM also practised a form of ‘working class democracy’ known as democratic centralism, which when explained to me once by an old trade unionist, Greg Douglas, an authority on such matters, means you do as your are told and vote as you are told! No questions! Presumably, believe what you are told! Should be added to this list as well, for the sake of completeness. Total loyalty then, is the most prized asset of an apparatchik and Kevin Barron appeared to be no exception to this rule.

I notice the use of the terms, “I have always stood up for coal miners and coal mining communities.” No one accused him, of not standing up for miners nor coal mining  communities, so why the weasel words? That’s where we will leave this trip down memory lane for now, until the next time.

Labour Mutates once again! ‘Old’, ‘New’, ‘Blue’ now ‘Real’ Labour, but remember no change will come to Rotherham Labour – Ed Miliband’s writ does not apply in ‘Scum Labour Tendency’ Rotherham

As Labour gathers in Liverpool this weekend for their Annual Conference, debate has surfaced regarding what Labour is to be ‘branded’ as next. I gather that ‘Next’ Labour has been well fancied but has been discarded in favour of ‘Real’ Labour.

Whatever ‘branding’ stunt Labour pulls nationally, the fact remains that here in Rotherham and elsewhere in the Labour ‘Heartlands’, citizens have to endure a mutant form of Labour, dubbed ‘Scum’ Labour, by Michael Elmer, a local South Yorkshire man, unfortunately living in Beckenham at the moment out of necessity rather than choice.

The fun really started when Michael’s letter was  published in the ‘Tiser on September 9th. I re-publish it here with a small edit restored at the beginning:

Nasty strain infects party

Sir-Labour mutates. There is Old Labour, New Labour, Blue Labour and in South Yorkshire, where Party Leader Ed Miliband has his seat, Scum Labour-an altogether nastier strain.

Once a party of decent working men, that famously “owed more to Methodism than to Marx,” mutant Scum Labour includes liars, politispivs and crooks, with one MP jailed for expenses fraud, another suspended and a third forced to apologise to Parliament when caught out using House of Commons stationery for Party purposes.

Scum Labour also contaminates the body politic at local level with manifest arrogance, bullying, breaking of electoral law and spreading lies about opponents.

The scandalous case of Cllr Gerald Smith, lucky to escape with a police caution, has now gone viral with his outrageous claim that Christian Democrats are far Right reaching the foreign press.

In a statement seen by the Rotherham Advertiser and available on the Rotherham Politics website. Prof D.L. Hanley, this country’s foremost expert on Christian Democracy, has written that this claim “reveals at best political ignorance and at worst a desire to mislead.”

Scum Labour is now affecting Labour’s renewal work.

On June 22 Dr Udo Zolleis, head of planning of the CSU, the Bavarian Christian Democrats, was received in the Palace of Westminster by Blue Labour.

Nasty Tumours and hideous growths like Scum Labour need to be cut out. Smith’s supine cronies may not see this, or else lack the courage to act, but there are cleverer Labour figures at Westminster who do.

Michael Elmer, Beckenham.”

I have spoken to Michael about his critics opinions. He vehemently rejects them! I still can’t think of a better description than ‘Scum’ Labour, to sum up RMBC Labour Group, the local Party machine, Gerald Smith, the antics of Rotherham MP Denis MacShane and the conviction and jailing of Eric Illsley whilst a sitting MP. When you put it that way, it is difficult to argue with the principal conclusion!

In a predictable fashion, Denis MacShane just couldn’t resist rising to the bait and fired off an angry denunciation of Michael Elmer’s opinions, I quote:

“I was saddened to read a letter talking about Ed Miliband and the Labour Party as “Scum Labour” (see Advertiser, September 9).
Coarse abuse permeates too much of our political debate.
Readers would be astonished at the abusive, foul language in emails and letters I get but there is always the delete button or wastepaper basket.
But should this kind of gutter vocabulary appear in our local newspaper? I note the letter was written by someone living in Beckenham.
I hope the local weekly in Beckenham would not publish a letter from Rotherham about Scum Conservatives or Scum Liberal Democrats.
I am all for robust debate and vivid language, but calling a mainstream democratic political party scum debases political discourse and degrades political Language.

Denis MacShane MP, House of Commons, London.

The following week a young man, who comments freely here under the moniker community champion and in letters to the ‘Tiser as P.J. Cawkwell of Conisborough, jumped on the bandwagon and produced this missive published last Friday. Hoped it would be available on the ‘Tiser’s website but unfortunately it is not, so I will have to type it out. Hope the ‘Tiser don’t mind? I quote:

Disgusted at ‘Scum’ label

I am disgusted that a mainstream left-wing democratic political party can be described as “scum” in your newspaper see Advertiser, September 9).

I am disgusted that local activists like myself have been branded “Labour scum” simply for wanting to improve our towns and villages with everything from bold ideas to small, insignificant changes to help the community in any way we can.

What really does stick in my throat is how the website http://www.rotherhampolitics.org.uk/ and it’s author/contributors can pull down a member of Rotherham town centre’s business community for wanting to kick start reinvestment in the High Street.

Rotherham needs the investment and innovation that Chris Hamby’s project can bring.

I really do feel positive about the town centre, until I read vindictive letters on that website or in this newspaper which pull Rotherham to pieces.

If Rotherham and it’s people offend you so much may I suggest you move to another town.

P.J. Cawkwell, Conisborough.

Thanks a lot Patrick, for being the first to successfully get this blog’s full web address into the ‘Tiser, you have done us a service there!

PJ’s letter is most interesting, it certainly displays greater erudition, vocabulary and sentence construction than any of his other contributions which can be found all over this blog like a rash! Was he really the author? Or did he have help, perhaps he phoned a friend?

P.J. really should understand the very real difference between ‘Scum’ Labour and Labour ‘Scum’, they mean quite different things and to use them interchangeably is a distortion of the truth.

As for his rambling, synthetic rant about one of our previous posts, The Bank of Rotherham – From the Taxpayers Alliance. This report was brought to readers from the Taxpayers Alliance for readers edification and enlightenment, it certainly was not expressing mine nor other blog contributors opinions collectively, and it is a ridiculous distortion of the facts to say that it is! Only two comments have been left, one from PJ and the other from a contributor Grald-Hunter!

Nothing about this post should have resulted in PJ attacking this blog or it’s contributors because the opinion alleged simply is not a reasonable interpretation of the facts nor an excuse to write such drivel, parading inaccuracies and to expect the ‘Tiser to print it! Unless of course, they may not have intended to be entirely helpful? If PJ’s mate, Denis MacShane, gets his way, with a small claims libel court, PJ, would I am afraid, be going there pronto! Along with Gerald Smith, I would imagine?

One thing is entirely clear, PJ a member of Doncaster Labour Party, and Labour Maltby Town Councillor, Stewart Platt, are both extremely greedy with the frequency of their comments, some are priceless, all are ignorant and extraordinarily childish for two grown men! Quite typical of the domineering, Scum Labour Tendency in action. Study the comments carefully and as well as foolish and childishness, a certain arrogance is manifestly present, typical of Scum Labour!

Playing the player, not the ball, is a common stratagem deployed against those with whom they disagree or who have the temerity to stand up and be counted,  standing in local elections in opposition to the candidates of the Scum Labour Tendency.

Some of us are old enough to remember some of South Yorkshire’s scandals that have passed in to legend and has characterised this area over the years. Poulson and T Dan Smith, Donnygate and Garvin Reed and the Anti-Poverty Forum spring immediately to mind, but there are many other fine examples of the tendency to corruption, when Labour dominates with untrammelled hegemonic power.

Remember, some serving currently, on borough, town and parish council’s throughout Rotherham, were around when all of the above incidents of corruption and fraud occurred and it frankly stretches credibility too much, to think that these practises are extinct!

Rik

Competition Time:
These are a few random examples of Stewart Pratt and P.J. Cawkwell’s recent comments, some might amuse themselves playing the game of which is which?

No1
LOL!
Your tirade doesn’t let up does it?
Moaning about nothing, day in, day out.
No2
yes thats right your dick
No3
blah blah blah
No4
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh handbags
No5
Tough!
No6
dear i hope you,ll be there with the rest of the INDEPENDENTS joke wat party was u before u to became a failure
No7
sorry i meant ronald u no RONALD MC DONALD CLOWN ,sorry i went early last night don but there was a realy funny man on tv ,even funnier than u think you are.BRAVE HUNTER,dont think so thats why u hide behind a made up name ,warrior no just because u got a10 thunderbolt for your pic dunt make u a warrior.come clean let us no this BRAVE man,or are u really the brave SITTING BULL -SHIT,over to u ronald mc
No8
Oh dear me.
No wonder your right wing lot are doing Rotherham down…people from outside of the town being slated for working there.
What a sorry state Rotherham is in with people like you around to pull it down, inch by inch.
I wonder why Thrilie hasn’t signed up yet to contribute? Hmmmm……………….
No9
I have to say that I agree with Denis on this issue 110%
No10
u going round in ya a10 don,its dark out thereoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow
There all on here somewhere. Happy hunting!

MacShane expenses scandal – Advertiser wades in!

The Rotherham Advertiser has now covered the story online:

Mortified’ MacShane repays £3,000 claim cash

Published date: 21 June 2011 | Published by: Phil Turner

Repayment: Denis MacShane.

ROTHERHAM MP Denis MacShane has repaid £3,000 which he over-claimed for his second home after a discrepancy dating back seven years was discovered. Read on

Millers Loan – 59.4% opposed in Advertiser poll!

According to an Advertiser online poll 59.4% were against, 36.3% were in favour with just 4% very reluctant at this time of suppose ‘austerity,’ when asked about the outrageous £5,000,000 loan to the Millers.

A pretty decisive result in any ones terms. Not that unpopularity ever put them off in the past.

Were Chris Read’s nomination papers correctly completed? The definitive answer!

Or, has the Advertiser mislead it’s readers?

Read comments here.

I read Gareth Dennison’s piece in last weeks Advertiser with interest. The story was cobbled together from copied emails provided by Rob Foulds, I was party to this circulation. So I was aware that by Friday, the story as published, was substantially misleading, because the final piece of the jigsaw from the Electoral Commission was not reported, and was the clincher in determining where the truth lies in this case.

I fully expected this to be covered again in this weeks Advertiser in view of the fact that Gareth knew the previous week, by the time the Advertiser hit the streets in fact, that his story was incomplete and gave a misleading impression as to where the actual fault lay. Needless to say I experienced anger and more than a little frustration at this thoroughly unprofessional journalistic behaviour, I expected better.

Labour in Rotherham are comfortable that their dominance will not be effectively challenged by anyone and have become careless and arrogant with their actions, especially so, since the Stone Age began.

The case of Chris Read’s address is an example of the way this dominance finds expression. This stunt was not the result of ignorance, but a calculated conspiracy involving the Labour Party and Senior Officers, who should know better! By election night, both Labour Councillors and Officers, were singing from the same hymn sheet about Chris Read and had let slip the extent of the discussions on this issue. I won’t name them, but I am indebted to them for the illumination they provided!

Unfortunately the Advertiser also fell for this official line, as though it was established fact, instead of the perverse interpretation of those blinded by self delusion and prejudice seeking a specific outcome. Where have the Advertisers objectivity and critical abilities gone? They must return! The Advertiser and it’s journalists really must start asking questions, instead of swallowing the Labour line, hook line and sinker!

Martin Kimber, Rotherham MBC Chief Executive, I am told is someone not easily persuaded to change his mind even when contradictory evidence comes to light! Stubborn and obstinate are words frequently used by those who work with him. Tim Mumford, just about to retire as the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Admin, advised that their perverse interpretation of the nomination procedures was legal! It was not! They had convinced themselves that the phase ‘commonly understood’ meant they could accept a deficient nomination with the address incomplete! They couldn’t have been more incorrect on this point as the definitive evidence from the Electoral Commission shows!

The Labour Party also convinced themselves that they had come up with a ruse that was legal, even though their own Legal Handbook advised otherwise, and would conveniently conceal the fact that Chris Read was not a local candidate and improve their chances of winning this difficult to predict ward that has developed a penchant for voting Tory in recent years. Those involved, among others, were the ‘grinning goon,’ Reg Littleboy and Chris Read’s Agent, Sue Ellis from Wickersley Labour Party, who put their plan into action.

Despite crude criticism of Rob Foulds for his apparent pettiness on this issue, his critics are wrong in almost every particular. This issue is very important as it demonstrates all the current failings of the Labour Party and Senior Officers. Respect for either the Law or their professional duties is subject to compromise that breaches the codes of conduct that apply here. The ‘blue badge abuse scandal‘ and the reinterpretation of legal orders to allow a councillor to escape justice, is another example of this unacceptable attitude at work! As is the issue over the Printer installed in the ‘Members Room’ by the Labour Party and Kimber’s inadequate response, another of the seemingly partisan approaches taken by  Martin Kimber and Tim Mumford that these recent examples shine a light on.

Sarah Hopson, from the Electoral Commission has confirmed Rob’s contention that a candidate has to complete the form and “the candidate’s home address must be completed in full and should not contain any abbreviations.” and that his address must be “commonly understood,” Chris Reed gave his address as Church Street, Rotherham which was wholly misleading and gave no common indication that he actually lives in Swinton. By the way, “commonly understood” means, how the locals would address themselves, it does not provide a cover for a deceptive address as in this instance!

It is clear that this deliberate deception was not legal or acceptable, this should serve as a lesson to the Labour Party locally, their arrogance will get them into trouble and nowadays their activities are being watched more closely than ever before!

Rob Foulds emerges from this sorry little tale of Labour chicanery, vindicated and with his dignity intact. Labour however have again demonstrated that there is no trick, they will not stoop to, to keep control of what happens in Rotherham! The Advertiser does not come out of this well either, they really must adopt a questioning attitude and not take the ‘official line’ as correct when they are in possession of the full facts! The police response, initially encouraging, was most disappointing. Even so, they acknowledged that deficiencies existed and undertook to remedy this in future elections.

Evidence:

From: Sarah Hopson <SHopson@electoralcommission.org.uk>
Date: 27 May 2011 14:47
Subject: RE: Local Elections 2011, Rotherham
To: “rob.foulds@googlemail.com” <rob.foulds@googlemail.com>

Dear Mr Foulds

Thank you for contacting the Electoral Commission about your experience during the May 2011 local elections in Rotherham. The Electoral Commission has no power to intervene in, or investigate allegations of electoral offences however; your e-mail has been passed to me to inform you of our guidance on the matters you have raised.

The first point that you raise is outlining the particulars of the address that the other candidate put on their nomination form.

The advice contained within our Candidates and Agents guidance on this matter is that the candidate’s home address must be completed in full and should not contain any abbreviations. We cannot comment on any individual cases as this would be a matter for the courts to decide. Any allegations of false statements on nomination forms must be reported to the police. However, it should be noted that where a home address is not absolutely correct, the nomination would not be open to successful challenge as long as the address can be commonly understood. This is covered in section 50 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

Your second point is about the failure to act by the Electoral staff. Returning Officers and their staff have to accept the information written on a nomination form on face value. They have no power to perform investigations into the details provided other than checking the electoral registration details of subscribers and that any description provided complies with the requirements of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006. They are tasked with checking that every item required has been completed and copying the details contained on the nomination form verbatim from the form onto the official documentation e.g. official notices and ballot papers.

Once the Returning Officer has made a decision that a nomination paper is valid, it cannot be challenged during the election, it can only be challenged after by way of an election petition. Just to note, the deadline for election petitions for 5 May elections has now passed.

I hope that this information is useful to you, if I can provide you with any further guidance on electoral matters please do contact me using the details given below.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Hopson

Regional Liaison Officer The Electoral Commission

_____________________________________________________________

From: <Gary.Blinkhorn@southyorks.pnn.police.uk>
Date: 24 May 2011 16:42
Subject: Re: Local Elections Rotherham 2011
To: Rob Foulds <rob@rofos.net>
Cc: Graham.Wragg@southyorks.pnn.police.uk, Caroline.Newman@southyorks.pnn.police.uk

Dear Mr Foulds

I have now examined your complaint and researched the relevant legislation
and Electoral Commission guidance notes and respond as follows:

As you indicate the address “2A Church Street, Rotherham, S64 8QA” would
perhaps be enhanced by the addition of ” Swinton”.
A person standing in that Ward does not have to reside in that Ward to
be a candidate providing he meets one of the four qualifications. Most
residents in Wickersley will know S64 isn’t their postcode.
Only the Labour Party Handbook gives actual specific guidance to include
the name of the village and in fact the more authoritative Electoral
Administration Act example you quote fails to give the village/area
within Basingstoke.
As you concede, it can be argued that his description does adequately
allow his address to be identified.
You received on the 6th April the “statement of persons nominated” which
included Mr Read’s name and address and on the 8th April the “Notice of
Poll” again including his name and address in the same form. However you
did not raise the matter until the evening of Polling Day when someone
else alerted you. I understand you are the Clerk to Bramley Parish
Council and perhaps better acquainted with these matters than most
candidates would be.
No changes could have been made to the nomination paper or new papers
submitted after the deadline and there is no legal requirement for
election staff to provide an informal inspection service for nomination
papers.

I have discussed the matter with my line manager and we are both agreed
that as no offence appears to have been committed by Mr Read no further
Police action will be taken The matter will be recorded with the Police
National Information Coordinating Centre, which reports to ACPO and The
Electoral Commission and I will ensure when we provide briefings to
candidates in future I will stress this area of the legislation. I did
attend the Rotherham briefing on the 6th April 2011, but I do not recall
this specific area being the subject of any questions.

Regards
Gary Blinkhorn
Manager
Research and Development Unit
Economic Crime Unit

_____________________________________________________________

Wickersley Notice of Poll Read here: Does this represent a Full Postal Address? I don’t think so!!!

_____________________________________________________________

Extract from the Labour Party’s ‘Keep it Legal,’ 2011 Election Manual:

“The home address of the candidate must be the official home address – not a business address or a temporary address. The place of residence must be fully stated, including the name of the town or village.”

_____________________________________________________________

Original Complaint: To read click here.

______________________________________________________________

Previously published:

Richard S Russell vs Rob Foulds – Fact Check

More news – Chris Read and Wickersley Labour – were the voters hoodwinked?

Wickersley Labour Lies! Voters deceived?

‘We’re all in the same boat’ like hell we are!

Reg Littleboy

I opened my Advertiser this week. On page 3, I was surprised to see Reg Littleboys’ face grinning, rather vacuously, out at me as part of a story entitled ‘We’re all in the same boat’. I read on with amazement and not to say increasing ire!

What a stunt to pull! A cut of 1.1% for all staff including the Chief Executive, Martin Kimber. A cut of 1.1% in councillors allowances, so they can claim to be sharing the pain equally! Even the Tories on Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council were well out of touch with public sentiment on this issue proposing a miserly 5% cut for the next financial year.

The people of Rotherham were expecting a grand gesture this year from their community leaders. A recent canvass of views on this, indicate that significant reductions in the ‘fat cat’ salaries, expenses and allowances were favoured by most and the most popular figure indicated as the minimum acceptable cut being 20%.

It is little wonder then, that most consider their community leaders to be motivated largely by personal greed, certainly not public service!

This stunt, to put it into some perspective, will likely not be enough to save even one whole job, big deal! Do they think we are stupid? They are certainly taking us for a ride! For the Town Hall ‘Fat Cats’, the ‘gravy train’ still runs from the station, it would appear?

As far as I am aware, only one political group in Rotherham is in touch with public mood on greed. They have called for reductions of significant proportions, of the order of 40%! This group are the Rotherham Independents and some of Rotherham’s voters will get the opportunity to vote for one of their candidates in May.

Denis MacShane – Independent Member For Rotherham – The Mike Britland Connection…..

I suppose getting the worst result for a Labour MP, against a self financed Independent at the May General Election, might even get through to Denis!

As I promised readers, that I would publish the Advertiser letters on this blog, I now do so.

On 14th May 2010 The Advertiser published the first two letters I draw your attention to. Mike Britland’s letter makes an attack on the person of Peter Thirlwall apparently authored by him as a member of Joe public!

The truth, I believe, is much more interesting than that! Read on below.

Peter Thirlwall has evidently ‘trodden on someone’s corns’!!!!

I also reproduce my letter of the same date, thanking our voters and promising to be back next year stronger and more able to take on the forces of inertia that prevent real change from happening.

Peter Thirlwall himself made a response in the next edition of the Advertiser on 21st May 2010.

Time to establish some facts:

Firstly, the results in question

General Election 2010
Rotherham Constituency
Party Votes % Share
Labour 16741 44.5
Tory 6279 16.9
Liberal 5994 15.9
UKIP 2220 5.9
BNP 3906 10.3
Rotherham Independent 2366 6.3

The breakdown for Independent local election candidates in MacShane’s Rotherham Constituency.

Rotherham Constituency Local Elections 2010
Rotherham Independent Candidates by Ward
Ward Votes % Share
Boston Castle 531 9.2
Brinsworth & Catcliffe 594 10.6
Keppel No candidate
Rotherham East No candidate
Rotherham West No candidate
Valley 828 16.8
Wingfield No candidate
Total 1953

Rotherham Independents, you will note above, fought only three Wards out of seven that make up the Rotherham Constituency. Is the ‘MacShane Camp’ seriously suggesting that Peter Thirlwall only received support from the Wards where we had local government candidates?

This part of his argument is at best, seriously flawed at worst, a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the facts?

Research indicates that Independents do much better in local government elections than in General Elections. Why is this? The publicity that Independents can attract at the local level can be considerable compared with the exposure during a General Election where all but mainstream candidates are drowned out by the television campaign.

It was thus across the country, where without a campaigning group to back them, they polled on average a rather meagre couple hundred votes, even Esther Rantzen did poorly. Many Independent Network, Parliamentary Candidates indeed did not get even a hundred votes.

MacShane had promised a similar outcome in Rotherham, but the ‘I will wipe the floor with Thirlwall’ did not materialise. Quite the contrary, in reality, once the electors voice was revealed for what it was, a lacklustre electoral performance by a sitting MP, with only44.4% vote share a meagre 16741 actual votes cast.

This is a disastrous result for MacShane however you put it, a total of 10,111 votes have gone AWOL since 1997! The BNP and UKIP votes were not suppressed! Nothing to boast about there then.

Neither was Peter Thirlwall ‘put to the sword’ metaphorically. Peter Thirlwall’s 2366 votes, a 6.3% vote share, was the truly remarkable outcome in a national context therefore! The best result for Independents in comparable circumstances, anywhere in the country! and he easily saved his deposit of £500!

Denis MacShane is a record breaker and now has the singular distinction, of getting the worst result for a sitting Labour MP against an Independent, in the whole country!

Little wonder his ego was damaged and bruised!

.

Mike Sylvester fought Wingfield as a full independent.
He is NOT a Rotherham Independent
Votes % Share
Wingfield 1467 29.2

Below is the aggregated ‘Independent’ votes including Mike Sylvester, who was not part of the Rotherham Independents but shown here to give the lie to the erroneous claims in the letter of 14th May. It should also be noted that the ‘MacShane Camp’ are not very good with calculations, 2 plus 2 making 5 perhaps?

Basis of claim in letter above.
Rotherham Independents 1953
Michael Sylvester 1467
Total 3420

I thought it would be interesting and would complete my analysis if I presented the local election votes for the Labour Party for comparison.

Rotherham Constituency Labour Vote
Cast at local elections May 2010
Boston Castle 2342
Brinsworth & Catcliffe 2610
Keppel 2077
Rotherham East 2199
Rotherham West 2403
Valley 2188
Wingfield 1948
Total 15767
MacShane’s Total 16741
Difference 974

Not sure what they really tell us apart from the fact that Denis received nearly a thousand more votes than the local government candidates did on the same day.

I now turn to the claimed author, Mike Britland.

Who is Mike Britland – The author of the letter of 14th May 2010?

Well, well! Mike Britland does not, after investigation, appear to be an ordinary member of the public, at all!

Certainly no unbiased commentator is Mike, but as I will demonstrate, he is revealed as a professional, Labour Party activist and member of the ‘MacShane Camp’!

The evidence:

Pretty conclusive is the fact that Mike Britland has registered Denis MacShane’s new website, http://www.denismacshane.org.uk, in his own name. View details here.

As is this from Denis’s website:

This site is using MelMel WordPress theme created by andrastudio. Promoted by Mike Britland on behalf of Denis MacShane MP,* hosted by one and one Internet Ltd”.

*My emphasis.

Finally for now, he shares the same home address as Labour councillor Barry Kaye, very much a Labour loyalist.

Mike Britland then, is not as presented to Advertiser readers. By omission, he misrepresented himself.

Did he also misrepresent himself as author?

Textual analysis would indicate that this letter was put together by more than one contributor and as we also now know that Mike Britland is a fully paid up member of the ‘MacShane Camp’, perhaps that is not surprising!

The pejorative construction placed on the use of words such as ‘charismatic’, ‘ego’ and ‘allowances’ and the general tone of the letter is deeply personal and may be the crucial clue as to why this was sent for publication.

Additionally, the author clearly harbours resentment at Peter Thirlwall’s high profile in the Advertiser!

The preoccupations that are being exercised here would appear more in tune with those known to be held by Denis MacShane than those of any third person? The spiteful nature clearly indicates that the ‘MacShane Camp’ was deeply upset by MacShane’s result and the magnificent 2366 votes Peter Thirlwall polled, very embarrassing!

I finish with this thought, I started with. It is worth repeating!

Getting the worst result for a Labour MP, against a self financed Independent at the May General Election, might even get through to Denis!

Independent Member For Rotherham – Denis MacShane – Another Website!

A quick internet search of references to Denis MacShane reveals a new website http://www.denismacshane.org.uk/. This was registered as a domain on 14th September 2010. This domain has been registered in the name of  Mike Britland.

Incidentally, the same Mike Britland,  who had a letter published under his name in the Advertiser of May 14th, just after the May elections, ridiculing Peter Thirlwall’s result** and asking him to stand down from the Council because he was elected as a Labour Party candidate.

I wonder if he is asking Denis to do the same now he is an independent? Although I don’t expect he will, as he is presumably paid by Denis, with our money!

I will do a review in a later post, when I review all our local MPs Web presences.

My! Denis has been busy on the internet!

I wonder if he has stopped his buy up of domain names, we shall see in due course no doubt? He has yet to add http://www.denismacshane.net, http://www.denismacshane.org or perhaps surprisingly http://www.denismacshane.eu to his portfolio of domains, mmmm?

Other Denis MacShane Sites you might be interested in:

Denis on epolitix there was a time when nearly all domains pointed in the direction of this site.

Denis Parliamentary information Confirms his present status as Independent.

http://www.denismacshane.com & http://www.denismacshane.co.uk/ now default to http://www.denismacshane.org.uk/

Additionally:

Denis’s International Blog

Denis’s Re-election Site

Denis’s Twitter Page

Notes:

** Peter Thirlwall in fact had a magnificent result, getting a 6.3% vote share, saving his deposit with ease. The fate of most Independent Candidates in May was a mere few hundred votes at best and over 95% lost their deposits!

Peter was the only Independent Network endorsed candidate, without the benefit of a pre-existing campaigning organisation and plenty of money behind them, to save his deposit!

It is now obvious to me, that the person that was humiliated in May, was Denis MacShane himself!

Getting an employee to send a letter to the Advertiser is a low trick indeed! No more that can be expected of Denis though!

The Letter will be published here as soon as I have found it. Now that it’s authorship is open to question, it’s contents may be very revealing indeed!

Councillors, just who do they think they are? £2.9 Million spent on the Town Hall!

We finally got the low down on the costs of the Town Hall refurbishment thanks to the Advertiser and Phil Turner, their reporter, not being prepared to take no for an answer when they made a Freedom of Information request that was outrageously rejected initially on the grounds of cost.

The Borough Council had a change of heart after they were roundly criticised for their ridiculous stance and the information was published by the Advertiser in a special report by Phil Turner on the 15th October edition.

I quote the salient facts:

Where The Money Went
Chairs and coverings £310,000.00
Wallpaper £154,000.00
Toilet Fittings £119,000.00
Kitchen Facilities £98,000.00
Carpets £111,000.00
Microphones/technology £217,000.00
Security £106,000.00
Function room bar £30,000.00
Windows £40,000.00
General building costs £1,715,000.00
Total £2,900,000.00

These are truly ‘eye watering’ amounts of our money spent by the councillors on themselves refurbishing the Town Hall!

They are in addition to the £793,000.00 spent on the Eric Manns Building creating what amounts to a private club for these cosseted individuals and £2,460,00.00 on the new Doncaster Gate offices!

£154,000.00 spent on wallpaper! £119,000.00 on toilet fittings! are they solid gold? £217,000.00 on technology the councillors won’t be able to use! £310,000.00 on coverings and chairs, somebody is seriously having a laugh at our expense it would seem?

Despite these vast sums being spent it apparently is not possible for those in wheelchairs or who can’t climb stairs to access the public gallery at the Town Hall!

The Councils justification, ‘well, it’s less than a New Town Hall, that would have cost £7.5 Million’. So that’s a saving then is it? Attitudes like this must change, the real world must intrude even into Rotherham’s, Labour controlled, local government. Rotherham folk deserve better!