Cheadle and Gatley Lib Dems are moving
Your Lib Dem team for Cheadle West & Gatley Learn more
by Lib Dem team on 28 February, 2012
An ex-Labour councillor and a Labour Party document both suggest Labour and the Conservatives have been in secret coalition talks to grab “all paid positions” in Stockport. We have the story.
The Labour Party never misses a chance to attack the Lib Dems for being in Coalition with Conservatives, and the Tories are always telling us how bad for the country Labour are.
So we were surprised when a councillor who’s recently defected from Labour told us that secret coalition talks have been taking place between Labour and the Conservatives in Stockport.
We asked the two party leaders whether there was any truth in the claims. At Full Council, the Labour leader denied meetings had taken place, whilst the Conservative leader suggested there had been meetings but did not expand on what they were about (he has since denied that there were coalition talks).
Cllr McAuley – the ex-Labour councillor who now sits as an Independent – then accused the Labour leader of peddling untruths. Secret Con/Lab coalition meetings had taken place, he told the Council, and there had been reports back to the Labour Group.
And there’s evidence to show that it’s Cllr McAuley who’s telling the truth.
These minutes of the Labour Group meeting from 9th January 2012 make clear that there have been meetings between Labour and the Conservatives, including discussions about how the paid positions on the council might be carved up between the two parties.
Is Stockport Labour only too keen to jump into bed with the Tories if it gets them more money?
Will the Conservatives do a deal with Labour in order to get “all paid positions“?
And why are they both so keen to keep it a secret?
See section 8 of the minutes below.
Stockport Labour Group meeting
13 Comments
Ask me if I’m surprised
I see the standards on this blog are as high as ever.
Are you saying that you or the Liberal Democrats would never work with either party in coalition (formal or informal) in Stockport?
No, Oliver, I hope it’s very clear that I’m not saying that at all!
So basically this story is a huge waste of time?
You have the smallest indication that both parties have been talking – that is all. You and I know both know that very similar discussions have taken place between your party and other parties in the recent past and I am sure will do so again in the near future.
This is an appallingly bad attempt at making a laughably hypocritical political point.
I don’t think you’ve quite grasped the story, Oliver (or more likely you’re choosing not to, in order to make your political point!)
Fair enough!
Please enlighten me….
As far as I can see it is more cynical party political point scoring – headlines for your next leaflet?
I think the story couldn’t be much clearer – certainly no-one else I’ve spoken to had any trouble with it, so I’m very happy to let the facts speak for themselves.
So I’m right then – it is just a party political smear piece. Honestly councillor, when you’ve been rumbled just come clean in future…
No, you’re not right, but I can’t think of a clearer way to say that so I’ll leave it there, Oliver.
As one has said before on other related council bloggs – there are TOO MANY COUNCILLORS !
Oldham MBC have cut by one third the number of their councillors – IR claims only Governmental Primary Legislation can achieve this – NOT SO.
But, if the political class had the wherewithal…
Stockport MBC should have 30 seats (instead of the 21 now) with just 1 councillor per seat (instead of the 3 now). These seats would be elected once every five years-
Result ? With fewer such elections – the ‘value’ of the vote would be that much greater – perhaps encouraging an increased turnout = democratic legitimacy which the current set-up lacks.
Hi Robert,
You’re right – I had been told a couple of years ago that we couldn’t change the number of councillors, but information I’ve had since then suggests that it is possible.
There are many different options, all with pros and cons, and it’s something that’s worth looking into further.
However, I would say that the evidence doesn’t support the idea that having fewer elections leads to higher turnout. Plenty of places have “all-up” elections only once every four years – including Cheshire East just up the road – and it doesn’t seem to make any significant difference to turnout.
Regarding turnout – you may be right – over to you lot to ‘inspire’ us !
But, if nothing else, our proposal would save the ‘crushed’ taxpayers a fortune !
I agree – there are too many councillors – my vote would be to reduce the numbers by at least a third. Similar to Brussels who hyave with far too many MEPs – does anybody know what they all do?