A couple of weeks ago I attended the opening of the new Glencoats Primary School in my ward, the usual suspects were present at the familiar ceremony which was very nice, the children performed well and their teachers and parents were justifiably proud.
I remember about 6 yrs. ago fronting a meeting with education officer Stephen McKenzie where I talked about the bright future of education in Ferguslie where two old schools with declining rolls would be replaced by a brand new state of the art primary costing approx. £7. million. Incredibly enough I was met with hostility, due in no small measure to the presence of the SNP who had done their utmost to spread rumours designed to turn the local people against the school.
Here we were 7 yrs. later and who was making the speeches and cutting the ribbon but the same SNP who had opposed the Labour plans for schools, smiling and praising the school to the highest, a great conversion eh ? More utter Hypocrisy from the SNP.
READ THE PAISLEY DAILY EXPRESS Oct. 31 - 07 ( Green light for £210 m airport link plan ) The SNP Convener of Planning Cllr. Nicolson chaired the meeting where this 'green light' came on, he was fulsome in his praise of the Rail Link saying it "would be a great benefit to the economy in Renfrewshire" so what ? I hear you ask, well, this is the same Cllr. Nicolson who along with his SNP group campaigned against the Rail Link, they even ran a pathetic petition against it on their web which attracted about fifty names over about 3 yrs.
There's more folks ! at the election in May many people in Houston would have voted for the SNP one of the reasons they did so was a local campaign to prevent the sale by the council of open ground at Manse Crs. Houston.
The local people were supported in this by the SNP and in particular Cllrs. Noon and Nicolson who helped their campaign.
Fast forward to a planning meeting with the SNP in power and their friend and fellow campaigner Cllr. Nicolson in the chair, need I go on ? yes it's sold folks, to the highest bidder and they 'the local people' sold also, straight down the river by the SNP - we may hear more about this as my old friends from the Standards Commission are now sniffing around, I will return to it. Meanwhile these are the people who asked the voters to trust them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
80 comments:
Terry:
So the SNP changed their minds about policies? Doesn't everyone?
I am not a fan of the SNP, but they must have done something right to get elected (despite the best efforts of Douglas Alexander to rig the voting).
A significant part of me is impressed by the knowledge of classics you display in that title.
I notice that you post your replies to the comments from others during the day Cllr Kelly.
Shouldn't you be doing work in the council on behalf of your constituents during this time instead of rattling rubbish on the net all day long?
The people of Paisley actually have to pay you expenses and call you an "elected member". I pity the poor people!
Rumbold - These 'u' turns took place weeks after coming to power, power which they only got by forming a coalition with the Lib. Dems. You can't get much lower can you.
They also insulted the electorate by using 'Alex Salmond for first minister' to get to the top of the ballot paper, he estimated that enough Scottish voters would be gullible enough to fall for that, an insult to the Scottish people.
Anon - The people of Paisley elected me for the third time in May and I romped home ahead of all the other candidates.
You are a fool.
Terry,
You yourself said that politics can be tough at times and intimated that Labour politicians who supported the Iraq war did so with heavy hearts. So I am somewhat perplexed that Labour saying one thing and doing another is them "playing the political game" but the SNP doing exactly the same dance with their convictions are hypocrites on a U-turn.
Re the Houston thing. If they have u-turned then, as you are keen to point out, it is up the voter to pass judgement. However I would be careful of making a virtue out of that U-turn because it is clearly an issue that the people of Houston feel strong enough about the situation that you lot proposed to vote against it and you. Although I can see where you are coming from.
In what way are the Standards Commission investigating this one? Is there a personal contact here that needs investigated? I do find it odd because given the timescales of the process and the election I must assume the majority of the work was done by a Labour committee and therefore I would have thought that any wrongdoings were more likely to be on the Lab side than the Nat? However I am sure you will point out where I am wrong in this.
RFS - I don't understand your first para. What 'u' turns are you referring to ?
Your second para. Is not very clear either but I will try.
We (Labour) were going to sell off this land at Manse Crs. This met with resistance from the residents in the area who were helped by SNP Cllrs. Noon and Nicolson, people in Houston were persuaded to vote SNP for this reason IMO.
Shortly after the election Nicolson chaired the planning meeting which agreed to sell the land, I hope you are still with me, according to the gossip the Standards Commission might want to consider if Nicolson had an 'interest' in this issue ? Remember he chaired the meeting. Does that help ?
By preparing the sale or advocating the sale Labour done nothing wrong and, the SNP did nothing wrong by passing it despite campaigning against it in opposition, they do however IMO seem to have let down the people of Houston badly, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people who voted for them feel betrayed, what do you think ?
"The people of Paisley elected me for the third time in May and I romped home ahead of all the other candidates."
Living proof then, that if labour put an ape forward as a condidate, labour voters would still vote for it.
U-turns? The ones YOU mentioned in YOUR reply to Rumbold. Do try to keep up.
I agree with you. And I am sorry for one of my sentences being very very long. I did not realise that until I re-read it.
Thank you for outlining the rumour. I look forward to you keeping us informed.
The point I was making however is that you are pointing out the u-turn and making capital out of it. But it seems you fail to grasp that this is a subject very dear to the Houston residents and that they voted against Labour for this reason. It is just that I would not go around trying to say "look, they are just as bad as us". I think it kind of makes both sides look bad, and I assume the point is to make only the SNP look bad.
Terry,
So you are saying this is a bad news story/
To compile a dossier of all of the Labour promises made and renaged upon over the last 25 years would take an army of people.
Get a life Terry. these guys have only been in power for about 6 months and already They are showing labour up for what they are.A corrupt and backward thinking administration that have delivered the town of Paisley into the dark ages.
If any adminstration can recover from the the disgraceful damage that has been inflicted by the previous Labour Council then they will deserve awards of the highest order.
A short walk around Paisley Town Centre will tell anybody who comes from Paisley how much damage the previous council has done.
Hang your head in shame kelly and all of your colleauges.
You have had no real interest in the town. Your only interest has been in your salaries and expenses and in their perpetuity.
Terry:
"These 'u' turns took place weeks after coming to power, power which they only got by forming a coalition with the Lib. Dems. You can't get much lower can you."
Weren't the Labour party allied with the Lib Dems before the election?
"They also insulted the electorate by using 'Alex Salmond for first minister' to get to the top of the ballot paper."
Sorry, why was it an insult? Salmond became First Minister.
Living in England I do not grasp Scottish politics as well as some, so I might get a bit muddled some time.
Jock O Lantern - That's a cracker, so are you by the sound of you.
RFS - ?
RFS - You can keep informed by using the Standards Commission site.
I don't accept that we were/are bad for proposing to sell the land, I stand by that decision, we could have said vote for us and we will not sell the land as the SNP did but strange as it may seem to some people we wouldn't do that i.e. we would not lie to them.
Al - I'm telling the people who read this what happened - I think anyone who reads it will conclude that the SNP are Janus faced opportunists - that might be bad for them, I hope so.
Edgar - your willingness to turn a blind eye to these three major betrayals of the electorate rather marks your card does it not ?
Talking about two faces, are you as one with Wendy Alexander's ambiguity regarding Trident, or do you support the SNP 'Lets get rid of it' position?
I think you are slightly missing my point here. I am not talking about lies of one party or another. What I am saying is that this attack on the SNP will read as "look, we are both as bad as each other" and if the local Tory/Lib Dem/Ind reads your blog I would expect them to use this in their next campaign to beat both parties with a big stick.
Rumbold - "Weren't the Labour party allied with the Lib Dems before the election?" Yes we were and the shame of it will never leave.
"Alex Salmond for first minister" was an insult because he calculated that a great many Scots would be gullible enough to fall for it, and he was right.
Rabbie - what is your priority here is it getting rid of WMD's or is it scoring points against the Labour Party, I am innately suspicious of any political grouping which does not have disagreements among members particularly on issues of this importance.
I know the SNP well enough to know that there will be a great many right wingers in their ranks who will be keeping quite about this. My position is clear and that's what really matters.
RFS - If you mean both parties are as bad because they both ultimately sold or would have sold the land then yes but that's not what I'm saying.
We said we would sell the land despite knowing it would not be popular with the residents that's what you sometimes have to do in power.
They said one thing opposition and immediately reneged on it in power, that's different, and underhand.
You might well have the situation where residents in Houston will say I'm never voting for those SNP liars again and I'm probably not voting Labour because they would also have sold the land but, at least they did not lie about it so I'll give them another chance. Some people can see the bigger picture.
"I'm probably not voting Labour because they would also have sold the land but, at least they did not lie about it so I'll give them another chance."
So you aspire to win the votes of the abused electorate? How mediocre. And showing that you are learning nothing from being kicked into opposition.
RFS - I thought I was pointing out that we stood our ground despite the threats of lost votes while the SNP lied.
You seem to be saying that we should have lied about our intentions, why doesn't that surprise me ?
"You seem to be saying that we should have lied about our intentions, "
Nope, seems to me he's saying that if you had listened to the people you were voted in to represent in the first place, then you very possibly would still be in power and the SNP would not have had the opportunity to do a U-turn.
"You seem to be saying that we should have lied about our intentions"
No I am not. What I am saying is that if you think this is a rock solid way to win votes then you are clearly wrong. By pointing out that both parties are going against the wishes of the populace you are simply reminding the people of Houston why they did not vote for you in the first place.
Or do you hope that they will think "hey, at least the Labour group tells you they will ignore your wishes". Hardly a sound electoral platform.
Re my post on Trident.
My priority is not getting rid of Trident - like M/s Alexander, I want to keep it.
Nor am I trying to score points against Labour. After all, it was a real Labour man, Foreign Secretary Ernie Bevin, who refused to go 'into the conference chamber naked,' when Labour's closet communists wanted to ditch our original nuclear deterrent.
Now, having clarified my position, can we be clear on yours: Will you back your beliefs by supporting the SNP 'Get rid of Trident' campaign, or is the Alexander party line more important than your principles?
(Political Athesist aka Mutt aka ?) 05/11/07
That's a rather convoluted and dishonest defence of the SNP.
We did listen to the people of Houston, it would have been hard not to, they were well organised and very vociferous, helped by the SNP traitors in their midst.
We could have agreed with them and got their votes but, that would have been a lie, you are advocating lying to get votes, what next ? Are you an SNP member ? You ought to be.
(RfS) 05/11/07 - RFS - You are advocating lying to the electorate - we listened and disagreed with their argument, and unlike the SNP refused to lie to them, what kind of standards do you have.
Let me try to simplify it for you - there could be a massive movement to bring back capital punishment and if I was in a minority of one against the whole electorate I would vote against it - does that help, am I just wasting my time ? Does anything mean anything to people like you ?
(Rabbie) 05/11/07 - As I thought you are clearly more interested in damaging Labour than nuclear weapons.
My position is clear I am opposed to nuclear weapons and will always vote accordingly, I have never supported anything put forward by the SNP and I doubt if I ever will, the reason is, I don't trust them or you, both of you are more anti Labour than anti Trident.
(Rabbie) 05/11/07 - As I thought you are clearly more interested in damaging Labour than nuclear weapons.
My position is clear I am opposed to nuclear weapons and will always vote accordingly, I have never supported anything put forward by the SNP and I doubt if I ever will, the reason is, I don't trust them or you, both of you are more anti Labour than anti Trident.
***We did listen to the people of Houston, it would have been hard not to, they were well organised and very vociferous***
And you (the Labour-controlled Council) ignored them is that it?
***Are you an SNP member ? You ought to be.***
Political Atheist remember?! I treat all sides with equal contempt when they deserve it.
***My position is clear I am opposed to nuclear weapons and will always vote accordingly,***
So you WILL vote in favour of a bill to do away with Trident as that is what you believe in?
Very commendable, nice to see our elected officials having thew courage to stand by their convictions.
***I have never supported anything put forward by the SNP and I doubt if I ever will***
Ummmm?
So you WON'T vote in favour of a bill to do away with Trident if it is proposed by the SNP?
***you are more anti Labour than anti Trident.***
It appears you are more Anti-SNP than Anti-Trident yourself Terry!
"You are advocating lying to the electorate"
Oh Jesus.
No. I. Am. Not.
What I am saying is that you seem to be making a virtue out of being honest about your party being out of touch and ignoring the electorate as opposed to lying about it. What I am saying is that if this is the best way you can find to attack the SNP then you are in a very bad way indeed.
I am not saying to lie to them, I am just saying that any party who would attempt to make a virtue out of this lacks a certain cutting edge.
What I would suggest is not drawing attention to the glaring Labour shortcomings in an attempt to stick it to the Nats. Everyone else got that about 5 messages ago.
Puzzlement is heaped upon confusion here Councillor, can you please clarify.
Labour is in favour of keeping Trident, but you aren't.
The SNP is against Trident, as are you.
That means you'll support the SNP then, does it?
Err, no.
Cllr Kelly: "I have never supported anything put forward by the SNP and doubt I ever will."
Come on, Councillor, principles or politics - which is it?
PA - You are trying my patience but, I'll try again, we listened to the people of Houston and disagreed with them, we did not ignore them.
I hesitate to ask but have you grasped that ?
PA - More deviousness - I won't allow the SNP to high jack this very important issue so they and people like you can damage Labour, you and they are bogus, you couldn't care less about Trident.
RFS - Nonsense - we listened to the people of Houston and disagreed with them.
We then stood by what we thought was right despite the danger of losing votes, that is the principled way to conduct politics
The people do not tell us what to do, we tell the people what we are going to do and if they don't like it they vote for someone else - you presumably would sell your principles for a vote, right ? If you had any.
(Rabbie) 17:03 - 1/ correct 2/ wrong 3/ wrong 4/ principles.
***we listened to the people of Houston and disagreed with them, we did not ignore them.***
So you (the labour council) knowingly AND intentionally were intent on taking action contrary and in fact diametrically opposed to the wishes of the people you were voted in to serve?
***PA - More deviousness - I won't allow the SNP to high jack this very important issue so they and people like you can damage Labour***
So what you are saying now, is that you WILL vote in favour of a bill to do away with Trident, BUT ONLY if it is put forward by Labour?
Surely it is an important enough issue as to demand cross-party support with the Whips taking a back seat allowing each Member to vote as his conscience directs regardless of political affiliation?
PA - The ones who contacted us on this matter were told where we stood, that is to say, unlike the SNP we told them the truth. That's what all political parties are meant to do. We are not there to be told what to do by the people we are there to present what we stand for and ask for votes, sometimes we are persuaded by people's arguments and sometimes not.
If every elector in Renfrewshire supported Hanging, and forced repatriation of immigrants, I would not agree with them and I would lose my seat, I'm really beginning to think that you actually don't understand this. Would you knock on someone's door and say 'I'm standing for election what would you like me to think' Or would you say 'this is what I stand for' please vote for me.
***We are not there to be told what to do by the people we are there to present what we stand for and ask for votes***
Sorry, my mistake, I thought you were in office to serve your local community?
***sometimes we are persuaded by people's arguments and sometimes not.***
And when you are not persuaded, you are prepared to ride roughshod over the wishes of the majority of people in the area concerned?
Yup, that'll be how you lose votes.
My point is that surely if you had acceded to the majority view (the main principle of democracy?) and agreed NOT to sell there is every probability you would not have lost those votes and labour would still be in control of the council.
Would it not have been better to yield in one area and remain in power than be relegated to naysayers with no control or input in the council operations as you are now?
P.A. Please be careful - when he starts going all Hitler on you, ("My patience is exhausted") 'tis but a short step to being barred. (Unless he decides to invade Holyrood instead)
Re Trident & politics vs principle: An unusually helpful answer, but as the Mammy used to say, "You can't have yer cake and eat it."
Getting rid of Trident is the SNP position and yours. Labour wants to keep it.
Therefore, you are going against your own party line, and by definition, supporting the SNP.
Congratulations on at last discovering 'principles' Councillor. Stick with them, if only for the novelty value.
Terry,
Simple question and a simple yes or no answer would suffice.
Do you support Trident?
PA - I will not support an SNP proposal because I do not trust them, I believe that they are driven by a desire to damage labour and couldn't care less about what they use to do it.
PA - I've tried but, you clearly can't or won't understand.
(Janet) 06/11/07 - I take it you have given up then ?
"Getting rid of Trident is the SNP position" The SNP position is to damage Labour by any means, nothing more.
"supporting the SNP." I have some self respect even if you don't.
(AL) - No.
Janet - Heh heh, five days on this debate before Godwin's Law kicked in - is that a record?
Cllr
"The SNP position is to damage Labour by any means, nothing more."
So, to be clear on this, you are saying the SNP took part in - and won - a Holyrood election JUST to annoy Labour?
You are saying that every single thing SNP are doing or proposing to do whilst in power - scrapping bridge tolls, scrapping prescription charges, scrapping Trident, providing more money for grassroots sport, etc, etc - is being done JUST to annoy Labour?
Basically, the SNP are leaning further to the left than ever before JUST to annoy Labour?!
"The people do not tell us what to do, we tell the people what we are going to do and if they don't like it they vote for someone else "
I have never had such a hard time getting someone to admit that they agree with me. I have never argued this point above, what I am saying to you is that if you go to the people of Houston next time and say to them "you voted for the SNP and they betrayed you" then you are simply going to remind them that they did not vote for you lot because that is what you offered. What I am trying to say to you is that you will not pick up votes from there, they will simply go off and think to themselves "who was that chap that tabled the opposition motion against the proposal? Maybe we will vote for his party."
Really Terry, everyone else here has realised that using this issue to beat the SNP is a non-starter and the fact you are twisting and turning now shows that you did not think this attack through.
And for the record if I were to sell my principles out for a vote then I would not be on here arguing with you? I would simply agree with everything you said and hope that I could fool some people into voting for me. But I am not. So that one is self-evidently the weakest attack you have ever come up with.
Terry, while I would not sell my principles out for a vote what I would do is turn up at the council meeting to represent those who voted for me.
You and Williams need to stop playing silly buggers. Unless of course you want the people of Renfrewshire to come to the realisation that you are not taking your responsibilities in opposition seriously.
Is being on the council too much like hard work when you are not in charge?
You should be ashamed of your behavour today.
RFS - Let me try again to make this as simple as I can.
To the people of Houston ----- the SNP lied to you, they conned you into supporting them, We, Me, the Labour Party ----- told you the truth. You can now choose whether to vote for a Party which lies to you or a party which tells the truth, even when we know it will be unpopular. Anything getting through here ?
Or they can choose not to vote for either party that did not represent their views and vote for the party whos member sponsored the opposition motion. Neither the SNP or Labour.
Their choice. Which is what I have been saing all along.
(RfS) 13:58 - I think I'm right in saying that today was the first time in 9 yrs. That I have missed a council meeting (check it up) and I did put in my apologies. You seem to have a genius for making a fool of yourself, no one in Renfrewshire would have voted SNP using your attendance criteria check that out, see how stupid you can be.
"You should be ashamed of your behaviour today." This assumes that you know why I missed my first Council meeting in 9 yrs. Would you like to tell us what behaviour it was that I should be ashamed of ? Or is it just down to the usual excuse that you have a mouth like a clown's pocket ?
***You can now choose whether to vote for a Party which lies to you or a party which tells the truth***
So can can choose to vote for a party who admit they are a bunch of toerags or you can choose to vote for a party who are a bunch of toerags but pretend they are not?
Hobsons choice really!
All this bluster about 9 years without a missed attendance. It makes this one all the MORE suspicious, not less.
So why did you miss it then? When you have been so able to update your website?
TERRY
"we are there to present what we stand for and ask for votes"
AL
"Terry,
Simple question and a simple yes or no answer would suffice.
Do you support Trident?"
TERRY
"AL) - No."
It is true that the labour Party support Trident?
So if people voted for you on what "we stand for" (we being the labour party) then you have deceived them and have been voted in on the back of a policy you do not support.
Deception Terry? Pot and kettle?
PA: 'Godwin's Law'
Erudition on the Kelly Blog??? I had to look it up, but Good Man Yourself, PA
RFS - we will ask them to vote for truth or lies.
PA - Brilliant political analysis, you are wasted on us.
(RfS) 15:18 - What did I do to be ashamed of ? Why can't you answer ?
(AL) 15:46 -
This might be a mistake but I'll try.
As a labour Party member I am allowed to argue my case as often and as strongly as I want, with this issue as with any other once the Party has made a decision I am bound by collective responsibility, as I understand it this applies to all parties.
I can not speak or act against Party policy as a member. I might remind you that the local council has no locus in this matter and I have never referred to this matter at any council election.
Janet
***Erudition on the Kelly Blog???***
One must do what one can to raise the standards of conversation whenever possible ;P
***Brilliant political analysis, you are wasted on us.***
I know.
But if you pay attention you may learn something
Have you not already spoken against party policy by saying that you do not support Trident.
Did you not solicit votes under the guise of Labour party policy when you clearly have stated that you do not agree with one of their fundamental policies.
Did you in any way try to inform your potential voters of your objection to this fundamental policy?
If I was one of your constituents who voted for you and I was pro- trident, I would feel utterly betrayed by your recent comments.
I think you should consider standing down Terry as you are not fit to hold this post.
You look for votes on the back of policies that you oppose. you are the worst kind of hypocrite.
But didn't you also state that you would put principles ahead of politics?
Therefore by soliciting votes on the the back of policies that Labour stand for, you have deceived your constituents as you don't supoort one of those fundamental policies.
So which is it really Terry - politics or priciples.
If it is principles, then you should resign your post as you cannot support the Trident policy.
If it is politics then you should continue to live the lie and hide your shame when you speak to any of your constituents who have voted for you under a false pretence.
There is no doubt as to what you will choose Terry. Where else would you get a job that would give you a salary for computer blogging whilst renaging on your council responsibilities by non attendance at full council meetings
"As a labour Party member I am allowed to argue my case as often and as strongly as I want,"
It would probably help if you attended meetings once in a while as well.
(AL) 08/11/07 - 1/ yes in a personal capacity 2/ no 3/ no
You will have to avoid voting ever again because all political parties are the same on this fundamental issue it's called collective responsibility, I fear that you are not grasping this.
(AL) 08:44 - Read my previous comment, you clearly haven't a clue, similar to the others who are concerned about me missing a council meeting.
(Anonymous) 09:37 - Have you or the others doing this ever looked at the attendance of the SNP say, over the last ten years ?
You sound a bit hollow and the stench of lies is all around you.
Terry,
I fear it is you that is not grasping.
If you put principles ahead of politics then you should resign over your confilct of interest in this matter.
Collective interest only matters where you put politics ahead of principle
(AL) 13:37 - You either can't or won't understand. You seem to be telling me that I should resign ? And do what ? Take up fishing ?
I have to conclude that you are not being honest.
"we will ask them to vote for truth or lies."
While the party that sponsored the opposition to the sale will ask them to vote for their best interests. I think this one quote sums up the contempt the Labour party has for the people of Houston. Good luck.
(RfS) 15:09 - Maybe in your world - in mine telling the electorate the truth and standing by that is not treating them with contempt it is I repeat telling them the truth, is that so alien to you ?
When the "truth" you are telling is:
"We know what you want but we don't care we are going to do our own thing"
some people would regard that as just as contemptuous as lying.
(Political Athesist aka Mutt aka ?) 16:20 - "We know what you want but we don't care we are going to do our own thing" No it goes like this and this is the last time,
" we have listened to your argument and we do not agree with you, we would still like to have your vote but, if you feel you can't vote for us because of this we will respect your decision"
Post a Comment