TROUBLED TIME FOR RUGBY LABOUR COUNCILLORS
With ward electoral boundary changes due to take place in Rugby next year resulting in the number of Councillors reducing to 42 from 48, the question is what will happen to the 5 Labour Councillors covering the present Newbold and Brownsover South wards which will disappear and become the new Newbold & Brownsover seat with only 3 Councillors?
SITUATION NOT GOOD
The situation is not good for the local Labour Party, because it has been on decline in Rugby for many years - since controlling the local council in 1999 and now only having less than half (11) of the seats they used to have and no real likelihood of gaining other seats next year. At the present time it looks like we will see further declines in the number of Labour Councillors in the town with the merging of the Newbold and Brownsover South wards.
NOT GOING QUIETLY?
It’s unknown, if any of the current Labour Councillors covering Brownsover South - Claire Edwards & Andy Coles and Newbold - Ray Kirby, Ramesh Srivastava and Tom Mahoney will go quietly and it’s also doubtful if the only other two current Labour wards (Benn and New Bilton) and their Councillors will be eager to pick up the rejects.
While their is no doubt some better Councillors than others amongst the list above, the decision of who stands for Labour will be down to a handful of people in the party machine.
‘GANG OF 5’ – WILL WE SEE INDEPENDENT LABOUR CANDIDATES?
So all in all, not a good time for members of the ‘gang of 5’ which could result in peeved off independent Labour Councillors standing next year? Also what about other party members going along with something that may cut across their own personal political ambitions to be Councillors? Time will tell no doubt.
For more information about the proposed boundary changes and to make comments by the 20th June visit http://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/west-midlands/warwickshire/rugby-electoral-review
Reading this post makes me wonder if anyone can take your party seriously. It appears to be based on wishful thinking and ignorance, and seems designed solely to try and provoke trouble.
ReplyDeleteIt’s been known for some time that the total number of councillors will probably reduce by six across the borough. Clearly all three parties on the council were likely to face a similar situation. And the new proposed boundaries have been known for months.
However, to address some specific points:
“The situation is not good for the local Labour Party, because it has been on decline in Rugby for many years - since controlling the local council in 1999 and now only having less than half (11) of the seats they used to have and no real likelihood of gaining other seats next year.”
Given that the decline in council seats is in line with national trends over the same period, this is not remarkable. Regrettable, perhaps, but it’s not unusual for a long period of government at a national level to coincide with a long period of decline at local elections. Still, given that the new boundaries are so different across parts of the town, and that things have turned around locally in terms of vote-share – with some large swings in some wards – it is premature to conclude that there is no chance of other seats changing hands. With all-out elections meaning that there will be three seats up in all of the urban seats and many of the rural ones, it’s possible that voting patterns could lead to split results.
“It’s unknown, if any of the current Labour Councillors covering Brownsover South - Claire Edwards & Andy Coles and Newbold - Ray Kirby, Ramesh Srivastava and Tom Mahoney will go quietly and it’s also doubtful if the only other two current Labour wards (Benn and New Bilton) and their Councillors will be eager to pick up the rejects.”
Of course it is ‘not known’.,. because you are making stuff up, and engaging in conjecture, it’s obvious that you won’t know anything for sure. But you can certainly feel free to insinuate, eh?
“While their is no doubt some better Councillors than others amongst the list above, the decision of who stands for Labour will be down to a handful of people in the party machine.”
Aside from the awful malapropisms at the start (surely you mean “there are” not “there is”?), this is utter bunk. The decision on who stands in each ward will be (as has been the case for as long as I’ve been a member) open to all party members in that ward.
Your speculation about ‘independents’ is just that. This whole article seems to be an attempt to try and create splits in a rival party. Is that what Green politics is about? I thought it was about concern for the local and global environment. Perhaps I was wrong, and it’s really about creating a negative atmosphere and pursuit of some kind of vendetta against rivals.
However, given that you ignored my last comment – calling you up on a falsehood about whether I (as a candidate) had ‘refused to sign’ the pledge against cuts despite never having seen it until after the arbitrary deadline, I wonder what kind of response this will garner.