Monday 23 April 2012

More half truths and nonsense.

"The best lies sail closest to the truth." (Anon.) This was written by someone using the pseudonym of 'Whitelily' on the Pontypridd Town Website. I do wish people would wriggle out from under these masks if they want to post something like this.


"On his blog, Graeme Beard states he has never been in a Libdem Alliance.
This is untrue.
In 2001/2 he was in an Independent/Libdem Alliance with ex-Plaid then newly Independents Karen Roberts, Jim Davies, Katrina Jones - Independents Bob Fox and Paul Baccara and the Lib Dems Mike Powell and Stephen Belzak.
As a group they held the Chairmanship of Overview and Scrutiny which was given to Graeme Beard. He took the extra responsibility allowance of £9,000 plus on offer which he now shouts about as being wrong and robbing the people of RCT!
Glass Houses Graeme!"




More half truths and nonsense. I've already been through this.

Those people (including myself) were thrown together simply by virtue of the fact that they were not members of PC or Labour. It was no 'LibDem Alliance', or indeed any true working 'Alliance' at all and if it was, since that rag tag and bobtail group were mostly Independents then it would have been an 'Independent Alliance'. It wasn't that either. We all had different agendas on many an issue. There was as much disruption in that 'group' as in any other just as is the LP and/or PC. The difference being I suppose that this lot were not obliged to put their hands up to a proposal just by virtue of the fact that they were told to. Those members voted in the interests of the people who elected them and not along the lines of some faceless political party.

Alliances were certainly not the order of the day! And, by the way, you forgot to include Stuart Gregory who was/is also an Independent but I have no recollection of him joining any 'alliance' either. Bob Fox to my recollection never attended any meetings and was not part of this very loose group. And loose it was too.

It's like saying that if a decision came before Council and there was no division between PC and the LP so that they all put their hands up together then that's a 'Labour Party/Plaid Alliance'! If it's agreeable to both then it's a formality but that's not an 'Alliance' by any stretch of any furtive imagination. So if the Independents and the LibDems agreed with a proposal that came before PC but was opposed by the LP would that be a 'PC/Independent/LibDem Alliance'? How far do you stretch that one? Pretty distant logic that.

In fact as I remember we never even met as a full group of outlaws at all. Our 'group' numbers dwindled over time. We would meet on an ad hoc basis now and again when anything major was coming up. Even then the meetings were on a voluntary basis. The was no 'grouping' or any death defying master plan. We sat outside all that by default. LibDem Alliance? No! Even plain and simple 'Alliance'? No! I suppose it again depends on how it's defined but which ever way it was looked at there were very few 'alliances'. If we had come together as a group of people with a single mind (which is improbable I know) then possibly an 'alliance' but if that happened on any day then I can't remember it at all.

The Scrutiny Chair was given over to the group in 2001 (not me in particular) as was (is?) the law governing such as that and I Chaired the meetings for some months (it was then passed on to another which I think was Katrina Jones but I'm not quite sure) but at least half the 'extra allowance' (which again was given over by Katrina too as I remember) was placed in a central pot to buy goods and services that RCT would not and said they could not provide. There was talk about providing extra street cleaning services and buying a street cleaning machine etc. We bought ties for the first year students of a local school. Gave money to this and that cause. £100 here and £200 there. Nothing big but as best we could. It all helps. The other half was spent on my ward and elsewhere. (Archives Pontypridd & Llantrisant Observer.) So I actually didn't 'take the money and run' as is implied. It was used at the sharp end. If it had stayed with RCT it would have simply disappeared and never been seen again.

An extract from another page there;

"In my opinion every Councillor should spend at least part of their allowances on their wards. A large part actually. There are Pensioners Organisations; Youth Clubs; Schools; after School Clubs; Nurseries; and a multitude of other worthy causes just about everywhere. If you give it to them in cash or bought goods then all the better. If you leave it with RCT there'll be forms to fill out; a long drawn out pointless process to go through; a wait that seems interminable; lobbying at Councillor level etc. In effect begging. Just give it away for goodness sake and bypass that idiocy that only goes to keep people occupied in pen pushing exercises." (Me writing).


When I Chaired the Authority (1999/2000) I had an extra allowance. (Can't remember how much it was though. It didn't seem important since it would be gone soon anyway.) Again it was spent on my ward and elsewhere on the people (in the end I was just giving them back their own money) as can be evidenced by the Pontypridd Observer Archive material I have recently put out in a leaflet. There's no lies there either unless the reporters were in on some Graeme Beard conspiracy as well?! Utter nonsense. And they are just a few instances. But it's all a matter of public record anyway. Anyone can check it out at any time. I have never denied taking the allowances paid out at the time. In my opinion it's how I used them that's important. Left in the coffers of RCT it would have simply melted away. Bypass that and give it straight to the people. In the end it's their money.

An extract from that blog you mention 'Whitelily';

"No need to believe me out of hand. This is all in the Pontypridd Observer and Rhondda Leader archives at the local Library. Yep - I took my allowances, but if you look overleaf (on a preceding page of that leaflet there is proof of what I'm saying) there are a couple of examples of how I used to spend them. If I had left it with RCT the money would have simply disappeared in to some useless black hole (or deep pocket) without the people on my Ward seeing any benefit at all. I would rather spend it on them myself. So I did. No doubt you’ll be told otherwise but the evidence speaks for itself. The expenses I gave away came out of my own pocket either as cash gifts or bought goods. I made sure that the money went where it would be better used (to the people of my Ward in the main, but others too) so that it didn’t remain in the coffers of RCT where it would be wasted. Give it to those who deserve it, trust them and they’ll spend it right."

In fact, and this is just one example;

Western Mail on August 1 2002.

"The Democratic Alliance opposition group of Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council is setting up an action group to ensure that part of Pontypridd’s Ynysangharad War Memorial Park is not compromised by a proposed shopping centre development.
They are donating £100 towards a fighting fund to help cover the cost of independent legal advice.
The money is from the special responsibility allowance of Graeme Beard.


Check it out from your comfortable desk 'Whitelily'.

So we were called a 'Democratic Alliance' eh? Not something I remembered until I got hold of this a few hours ago. Now I remember though! Thanks for the heads up. You are handing me gold!


4 comments:

  1. I would ban the word "allowance." Let's just call it a salary.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But that's where they very cleverly use semantics. If they called it a 'salary' (and I agree with you by the way), then when all those earning less than £42,000 had their salaries cut they would have too. However, if it's called an 'allowance' it doesn't come under that same heading and they could therefore evade their own ruling. Sounds conspiratorial and sinister, but it's true.

    Another good one, and one that illustrates this really well was when the report of the Independent Remunerations Panel came before them last September recommending that they take a cut of 5% to 10% and that the Leader is allowed to do just one job and his RCT allowance be cut from £59,000(ish) to £52,000(ish) it mentioned 'electoral wards'. The officers compiling the report offered them a way out by saying that the Councillors on RCT didn't represent 'wards' but electoral 'divisions' and could therefore bypass the report. It wasn't taken up but it's another very clever use of semantics to, at least potentially, evade and avoid having their incomes cut.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In part I would agree. The big problem is though, as stated in the blog -

    "If you leave it with RCT there'll be forms to fill out; a long drawn out pointless process to go through; a wait that seems interminable; lobbying at Councillor level etc. In effect begging. Just give it away for goodness sake and bypass that idiocy that only goes to keep people occupied in pen pushing exercises."

    If that could be avoided (and I seriously doubt that!) then fine; well except that it would then become subject to the wishes and political wants and shenanigans of the ruling political party who would no doubt spend it wisely on their own wards or on another pointless 'public art' venture like the red carbuncle at the top end of Pontypridd! Not for me - I spent it on my ward myself!

    ReplyDelete
  4. "If I had left it with RCT the money would have simply disappeared in to some useless black hole (or deep pocket) without the people on my Ward seeing any benefit at all. I would rather spend it on them myself. So I did. No doubt you’ll be told otherwise but the evidence speaks for itself. The expenses I gave away came out of my own pocket either as cash gifts or bought goods. I made sure that the money went where it would be better used (to the people of my Ward in the main, but others too) so that it didn’t remain in the coffers of RCT where it would be wasted. Give it to those who deserve it, trust them and they’ll spend it right."

    ReplyDelete