Conservative fury at £160k City of York Council bill for consultants

First published in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Political Reporter

CASH-STRAPPED council bosses have come under fire over a new £160,000 bill for consultants.

City of York Council has agreed to spend the money as part of its work on the Local Plan, to replace the previous version that was scrapped last July, but the expense has been criticised by the Conservative opposition.

Tory leader Ian Gillies said the council was spending a lot of money to be told what it already knew and said the Labour council was also overlooking previous studies and reports.

The council scrapped its Local Development Framework, a 20-year planning vision, after a Government inspector raised “significant concerns” about the document and after new superstores and a community stadium at Monks Cross were approved.

The authority is now creating a replacement Local Plan and hopes to have it in place by 2015,. It says much of the work done on the LDF can be reused.

But Coun Gillies claimed previous analysis, such as the 2007 independent Future York Group report into York’s economy, was being ignored and he has criticised a £160,000 budget for “specialist and expert consultant input”, which will include external firms being paid £42,500 to report on “economic vision” and the future of York’s city centre, almost £6,000 to analyse housing requirements, and £38,500 to assess potential sites for new homes.

Coun Gillies said: “£160,000 is an awful lot of money for consultants to be telling us things we already know. For example, we have four road bridges in York and they are very busy, but we know that. We have got highly paid officers at the council and they should be doing this work. The Future York report should also be used as a starting point, because there were costs involved in compiling it and not much has changed since.”

The Future York report recommended setting “ambitious” goals to double the size of York’s economy by 2026, taking a “proactive” approach to securing funding to dual the outer ring road, improving regional airport links so journey times to and from York were no more than 45 minutes and continuing to develop Science City York.

Coun Dave Merrett, cabinet member for transport, planning and sustainability, said much had changed since then and claimed Coun Gillies’s view was “breathtaking in its simplicity”.

He said: “The city centre is facing major challenges, which is why we require expert analysis on how we step up to them.

“On the Local Plan, the Government inspector was clear that the evidence base needs to be up to date and able to withstand challenge. Some work is required externally where we do not have the expertise or capacity to undertake it in-house, consistent with councils across the country. Given the Conservatives nationally say we need a robust Local Plan, the local party needs to accept there is a cost attached.”

Comments (53)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:41am Thu 10 Jan 13

Gyspsy Power says...

Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?
Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste? Gyspsy Power
  • Score: 0

9:52am Thu 10 Jan 13

the famous one! says...

Terry Smith york conservatives fourth avenue,heworth,york, the labour council in york are incompetent,buracrat
ic, wasteful and dictators,the sooner the york 2015 general and local elections come the better,when the fine people of york can vote for a conservative central mp and council,that they can be truely proud of,who will bring them optimism,hope and change.
Terry Smith york conservatives fourth avenue,heworth,york, the labour council in york are incompetent,buracrat ic, wasteful and dictators,the sooner the york 2015 general and local elections come the better,when the fine people of york can vote for a conservative central mp and council,that they can be truely proud of,who will bring them optimism,hope and change. the famous one!
  • Score: 0

9:56am Thu 10 Jan 13

The Great Buda says...

Gyspsy Power wrote:
Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?
He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense.

We're in it; their together.
[quote][p][bold]Gyspsy Power[/bold] wrote: Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?[/p][/quote]He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense. We're in it; their together. The Great Buda
  • Score: 0

10:00am Thu 10 Jan 13

meme says...

we do have a real problem within the council at the moment
We are borrowed to the hilt to pay for things such as the living wage/the arts barge etc. all very laudable targets but unaffordable as we dont have the money
We pay over £650000 per MONTH in interest and owe over £100 million!!
what happens if the stadium goes down York are spending some £4 million of taxpayers money and its not guaranteed at all.
This is bad news. We will hit a finacial wall and the sad facts are just like the main UK economy unless someone gets a grip on reality we wil be paying in higher council tax for years to come.
I have no idea what party are the answer as as far as I can tell nobody of any political colour is prepared to make the very hard decisions that we have to take to be financially prudent and we are heading for financial disaster yet we dont do anything about it
we do have a real problem within the council at the moment We are borrowed to the hilt to pay for things such as the living wage/the arts barge etc. all very laudable targets but unaffordable as we dont have the money We pay over £650000 per MONTH in interest and owe over £100 million!! what happens if the stadium goes down York are spending some £4 million of taxpayers money and its not guaranteed at all. This is bad news. We will hit a finacial wall and the sad facts are just like the main UK economy unless someone gets a grip on reality we wil be paying in higher council tax for years to come. I have no idea what party are the answer as as far as I can tell nobody of any political colour is prepared to make the very hard decisions that we have to take to be financially prudent and we are heading for financial disaster yet we dont do anything about it meme
  • Score: 0

10:18am Thu 10 Jan 13

TheTruthHurts says...

The costs for this LDF just keep mounting up, we are already over a million pounds on this.

By 2015 the cost for this will be Millions of pounds...... and thats assuming that the council finally get it right. I'm not convinced that they know what they are doing with this.

I think its fair to say that on the subject of the LDF Merret has been and continues to be a total failure.
The costs for this LDF just keep mounting up, we are already over a million pounds on this. By 2015 the cost for this will be Millions of pounds...... and thats assuming that the council finally get it right. I'm not convinced that they know what they are doing with this. I think its fair to say that on the subject of the LDF Merret has been and continues to be a total failure. TheTruthHurts
  • Score: 0

10:20am Thu 10 Jan 13

goodfellow says...

Selby Council spend more thent this on one , failed, planning appeal. with more to come
Selby Council spend more thent this on one , failed, planning appeal. with more to come goodfellow
  • Score: 0

10:44am Thu 10 Jan 13

pedalling paul says...

All Local Authorities have workload peaks and troughs, and sometimes require specialist work which is often most efficiently met by retaining external consultants. The potentially more expensive alternative would be to recruit, train and pay someone on a short term contract.
The original LDF would have helped CoYC resist large car-dependant developments like Monks Cross retail & stadium. Had it not been for the York FC lobby, justifiable in terms of their existing premises condition, I suspect that Monks Cross would have foundered, rather than driving a horse and cart through the draft LDF and sending CoYC back to square one.
All Local Authorities have workload peaks and troughs, and sometimes require specialist work which is often most efficiently met by retaining external consultants. The potentially more expensive alternative would be to recruit, train and pay someone on a short term contract. The original LDF would have helped CoYC resist large car-dependant developments like Monks Cross retail & stadium. Had it not been for the York FC lobby, justifiable in terms of their existing premises condition, I suspect that Monks Cross would have foundered, rather than driving a horse and cart through the draft LDF and sending CoYC back to square one. pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

10:54am Thu 10 Jan 13

Hoofarted says...

Considering the Tories have just spent £8 Million on consultant fees for their NHS Bill to outsource (Privatize) the NHS services. I think this is rich coming from a man who sold a taxi plate that was given to him free by the citizens of York via (Taxi licensing) for £60000.
Considering the Tories have just spent £8 Million on consultant fees for their NHS Bill to outsource (Privatize) the NHS services. I think this is rich coming from a man who sold a taxi plate that was given to him free by the citizens of York via (Taxi licensing) for £60000. Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

11:02am Thu 10 Jan 13

nearlyman says...

Hoofarted wrote:
Considering the Tories have just spent £8 Million on consultant fees for their NHS Bill to outsource (Privatize) the NHS services. I think this is rich coming from a man who sold a taxi plate that was given to him free by the citizens of York via (Taxi licensing) for £60000.
seems like you have priviliged information once again.............
[quote][p][bold]Hoofarted[/bold] wrote: Considering the Tories have just spent £8 Million on consultant fees for their NHS Bill to outsource (Privatize) the NHS services. I think this is rich coming from a man who sold a taxi plate that was given to him free by the citizens of York via (Taxi licensing) for £60000.[/p][/quote]seems like you have priviliged information once again............. nearlyman
  • Score: 0

11:13am Thu 10 Jan 13

Hoofarted says...

What's privileged about it?

These keyboard Tory activists need to worry about their party selling the NHS off and the Probation Service also. It wont be long before a Police privatisation bill appears if these "Privileged" Etonian toffs get their way.

These are the real concerns for normal people. Unless of course your in a Private Health Care plan (Bupa). Then you will agree with the dismantling of the health service.
What's privileged about it? These keyboard Tory activists need to worry about their party selling the NHS off and the Probation Service also. It wont be long before a Police privatisation bill appears if these "Privileged" Etonian toffs get their way. These are the real concerns for normal people. Unless of course your in a Private Health Care plan (Bupa). Then you will agree with the dismantling of the health service. Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

11:47am Thu 10 Jan 13

atorycouncil2014 says...

The Great Buda wrote:
Gyspsy Power wrote:
Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?
He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense.

We're in it; their together.
09/01/2013 Cllr Simpson Laing tweets

@gerryboy67: Ian Duncan Smith thinks £70 a week JSA is too much. He also recently spent £39 on breakfast, then claimed it back from taxpayer on expenses
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gyspsy Power[/bold] wrote: Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?[/p][/quote]He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense. We're in it; their together.[/p][/quote]09/01/2013 Cllr Simpson Laing tweets @gerryboy67: Ian Duncan Smith thinks £70 a week JSA is too much. He also recently spent £39 on breakfast, then claimed it back from taxpayer on expenses atorycouncil2014
  • Score: 0

12:20pm Thu 10 Jan 13

TheTruthHurts says...

atorycouncil2014 wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Gyspsy Power wrote:
Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?
He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense.

We're in it; their together.
09/01/2013 Cllr Simpson Laing tweets

@gerryboy67: Ian Duncan Smith thinks £70 a week JSA is too much. He also recently spent £39 on breakfast, then claimed it back from taxpayer on expenses
has anyone noticed that on Tracey Simpson laings twitter page it says

All tweets are my own views


yet her account name is cllrtraceysl, now its not really a big issue but i just find it strange.
[quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gyspsy Power[/bold] wrote: Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?[/p][/quote]He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense. We're in it; their together.[/p][/quote]09/01/2013 Cllr Simpson Laing tweets @gerryboy67: Ian Duncan Smith thinks £70 a week JSA is too much. He also recently spent £39 on breakfast, then claimed it back from taxpayer on expenses[/p][/quote]has anyone noticed that on Tracey Simpson laings twitter page it says [quote] All tweets are my own views [/quote] yet her account name is cllrtraceysl, now its not really a big issue but i just find it strange. TheTruthHurts
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Hoofarted says...

Hmmmmm (scratches chin in a paranoid wondering way)

The lengths bored people go to ;=)
Hmmmmm (scratches chin in a paranoid wondering way) The lengths bored people go to ;=) Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Thu 10 Jan 13

PKH says...

TheTruthHurts wrote:
The costs for this LDF just keep mounting up, we are already over a million pounds on this.

By 2015 the cost for this will be Millions of pounds...... and thats assuming that the council finally get it right. I'm not convinced that they know what they are doing with this.

I think its fair to say that on the subject of the LDF Merret has been and continues to be a total failure.
Whilst I do not agree with Labours handling of the LDF, don't forget that the previous rejected LDF which was heavily criticised was mainly the work of the Libdems who were propped up the Tories. So all parties are tainted.
[quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: The costs for this LDF just keep mounting up, we are already over a million pounds on this. By 2015 the cost for this will be Millions of pounds...... and thats assuming that the council finally get it right. I'm not convinced that they know what they are doing with this. I think its fair to say that on the subject of the LDF Merret has been and continues to be a total failure.[/p][/quote]Whilst I do not agree with Labours handling of the LDF, don't forget that the previous rejected LDF which was heavily criticised was mainly the work of the Libdems who were propped up the Tories. So all parties are tainted. PKH
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Thu 10 Jan 13

PKH says...

I meant to so heavily criticised by the government inspector
I meant to so heavily criticised by the government inspector PKH
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

atorycouncil2014 wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Gyspsy Power wrote: Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?
He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense. We're in it; their together.
09/01/2013 Cllr Simpson Laing tweets @gerryboy67: Ian Duncan Smith thinks £70 a week JSA is too much. He also recently spent £39 on breakfast, then claimed it back from taxpayer on expenses
Does this means Buda reads TSL's tweets, or that Buda is TSL ?

Some allege that Buda is Coun Alexander, but, judging by the phrasing and politics of Buda's posts, TSL is an equally possible cadidate. Doesn't JA allegedly post under Newton1 ?

Waiting for Buda to come out on this......
[quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gyspsy Power[/bold] wrote: Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?[/p][/quote]He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense. We're in it; their together.[/p][/quote]09/01/2013 Cllr Simpson Laing tweets @gerryboy67: Ian Duncan Smith thinks £70 a week JSA is too much. He also recently spent £39 on breakfast, then claimed it back from taxpayer on expenses[/p][/quote]Does this means Buda reads TSL's tweets, or that Buda is TSL ? Some allege that Buda is Coun Alexander, but, judging by the phrasing and politics of Buda's posts, TSL is an equally possible cadidate. Doesn't JA allegedly post under Newton1 ? Waiting for Buda to come out on this...... Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

PKH wrote:
TheTruthHurts wrote: The costs for this LDF just keep mounting up, we are already over a million pounds on this. By 2015 the cost for this will be Millions of pounds...... and thats assuming that the council finally get it right. I'm not convinced that they know what they are doing with this. I think its fair to say that on the subject of the LDF Merret has been and continues to be a total failure.
Whilst I do not agree with Labours handling of the LDF, don't forget that the previous rejected LDF which was heavily criticised was mainly the work of the Libdems who were propped up the Tories. So all parties are tainted.
Don't blame the Lib-Dems - blame the left-wing officers behind the LDF.

Officers advise, and members decide !

The information the officers provide leads members up the garden path, and they are given options that steer decisions in the direction officers want. The system is massively manipulated by officers, and Labour know who's side they are on. The LDF failure is down to Merrett, Simpson-Laing and their cabal of left-wing officers.

If the LDF that was to go to EIP last year was to serve York for 20 years, how can major reports used for the Core Strategy now be out of date ? They were meant to inform York's future for 20-years, not 20-months. This is an excuse to waste more money, and any tweaking could have been done by officers. There is no need to do the whole exercise again, and the previous reports should have been used. At a time when money is tight, this council is hellbent on wasting it, to cause as much pain and mischief as possible, and then blame the government and the cuts. Alexander's brief and agenda is transparent - cause mayhem in York, and his reward will be a safe seat at the next election.

Politics is a nasty business, and Labour are the real nasty party, and in York that is very nasty indeed.

Kick em out in 2015 !
[quote][p][bold]PKH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: The costs for this LDF just keep mounting up, we are already over a million pounds on this. By 2015 the cost for this will be Millions of pounds...... and thats assuming that the council finally get it right. I'm not convinced that they know what they are doing with this. I think its fair to say that on the subject of the LDF Merret has been and continues to be a total failure.[/p][/quote]Whilst I do not agree with Labours handling of the LDF, don't forget that the previous rejected LDF which was heavily criticised was mainly the work of the Libdems who were propped up the Tories. So all parties are tainted.[/p][/quote]Don't blame the Lib-Dems - blame the left-wing officers behind the LDF. Officers advise, and members decide ! The information the officers provide leads members up the garden path, and they are given options that steer decisions in the direction officers want. The system is massively manipulated by officers, and Labour know who's side they are on. The LDF failure is down to Merrett, Simpson-Laing and their cabal of left-wing officers. If the LDF that was to go to EIP last year was to serve York for 20 years, how can major reports used for the Core Strategy now be out of date ? They were meant to inform York's future for 20-years, not 20-months. This is an excuse to waste more money, and any tweaking could have been done by officers. There is no need to do the whole exercise again, and the previous reports should have been used. At a time when money is tight, this council is hellbent on wasting it, to cause as much pain and mischief as possible, and then blame the government and the cuts. Alexander's brief and agenda is transparent - cause mayhem in York, and his reward will be a safe seat at the next election. Politics is a nasty business, and Labour are the real nasty party, and in York that is very nasty indeed. Kick em out in 2015 ! Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

2:34pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Coun Merrett said,
“The city centre is facing major challenges, which is why we require expert analysis on how we step up to them".


The Council spent seven years on the withdrawn LDF, and the challenges in this period are no different now. The credit crunch hit in 2007/08. What have officers been doing for all this time ? More 'expert analysis' is just a waste of more money, and is not needed. The end result is still the same, and Coun Merrett and his cabal of left-wing officers know it. It is a simple calculation to adjust the housing need figures by taking the housing targets deducting housing built, and factoring in any increases in waiting lists etc. This is an appalling waste of money. If the findings of these new reports is not significantly different to the existing ones, Coun Merrett and his group should be held responsible for the wasted money. He should then be made to resign for his bad judgement.
[quote] Coun Merrett said, “The city centre is facing major challenges, which is why we require expert analysis on how we step up to them". [/quote] The Council spent seven years on the withdrawn LDF, and the challenges in this period are no different now. The credit crunch hit in 2007/08. What have officers been doing for all this time ? More 'expert analysis' is just a waste of more money, and is not needed. The end result is still the same, and Coun Merrett and his cabal of left-wing officers know it. It is a simple calculation to adjust the housing need figures by taking the housing targets deducting housing built, and factoring in any increases in waiting lists etc. This is an appalling waste of money. If the findings of these new reports is not significantly different to the existing ones, Coun Merrett and his group should be held responsible for the wasted money. He should then be made to resign for his bad judgement. Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Hoofarted wrote:
Hmmmmm (scratches chin in a paranoid wondering way) The lengths bored people go to ;=)
You are bored, because you don't have any understanding of the issue.

Just an ill-informed Labour stooge, trying unsuccessfully to divert attention from the abject mismanagement of the Labour administration.

I bet that you haven't a clue what the LDF (Local Plan) is about, and don't know the difference between a SHLAA and a SHMA ? How about an AHVS or AHEVA ? When you have learnt what they stand for, go and read them, and then tell us why the existing ones need to be done again ? To make your life easier, talk to your mates James, Dave and Tracey, and they can ask officers to give you a synopsis.

In 2011, I challenged Coun Merrett about the housing trajectory within the SHLAA - he didn't have a clue what I was talking about and denied it's existence. There were five others present at our meeting and two of them were James and Tracey. After the meeting I emailed all present with a reference to page that the trajectory was on. I never got a reply, and since then all three have ignored my emails, because I had exposed their game of deceit. Their are names for people like them - I'll leave it for readers to make their minds up what those names are ?
[quote][p][bold]Hoofarted[/bold] wrote: Hmmmmm (scratches chin in a paranoid wondering way) The lengths bored people go to ;=)[/p][/quote]You are bored, because you don't have any understanding of the issue. Just an ill-informed Labour stooge, trying unsuccessfully to divert attention from the abject mismanagement of the Labour administration. I bet that you haven't a clue what the LDF (Local Plan) is about, and don't know the difference between a SHLAA and a SHMA ? How about an AHVS or AHEVA ? When you have learnt what they stand for, go and read them, and then tell us why the existing ones need to be done again ? To make your life easier, talk to your mates James, Dave and Tracey, and they can ask officers to give you a synopsis. In 2011, I challenged Coun Merrett about the housing trajectory within the SHLAA - he didn't have a clue what I was talking about and denied it's existence. There were five others present at our meeting and two of them were James and Tracey. After the meeting I emailed all present with a reference to page that the trajectory was on. I never got a reply, and since then all three have ignored my emails, because I had exposed their game of deceit. Their are names for people like them - I'll leave it for readers to make their minds up what those names are ? Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Hoofarted

While you are at it, ask Dave Merrett why there has only been one LDF Working Group meeting in the last seven months ? At a time when the Local Plan process is urgently needed to be progressed, what does this tell you about the sense of urgency Dave Merrett attaches to it ? The truth is, Merrett is blocking out memebers by regularly cancelling these meetings, so that his group dictate how things are manipulated behind the scenes. Some say that he is stifling debate, but, he is almost stopping it. It's time this shoddy carry on was exposed, and stopped.

IT STINKS !,
Hoofarted While you are at it, ask Dave Merrett why there has only been one LDF Working Group meeting in the last seven months ? At a time when the Local Plan process is urgently needed to be progressed, what does this tell you about the sense of urgency Dave Merrett attaches to it ? The truth is, Merrett is blocking out memebers by regularly cancelling these meetings, so that his group dictate how things are manipulated behind the scenes. Some say that he is stifling debate, but, he is almost stopping it. It's time this shoddy carry on was exposed, and stopped. IT STINKS !, Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

3:02pm Thu 10 Jan 13

tobefair says...

With 1,400 office staff and who knows how many outside staff employed you would think someone was capable of producing a plan. There again, reading all these posts it appears no one is capable of running the council, be they Labour, Conservative or LibDem.
Perhaps we should just pay consultants to run the council. You never know it might be cheaper.
With 1,400 office staff and who knows how many outside staff employed you would think someone was capable of producing a plan. There again, reading all these posts it appears no one is capable of running the council, be they Labour, Conservative or LibDem. Perhaps we should just pay consultants to run the council. You never know it might be cheaper. tobefair
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Hoofarted wrote:
Hmmmmm (scratches chin in a paranoid wondering way) The lengths bored people go to ;=)
After reading my posts, you will see the lengths people who take an interest will go to. We are only bored by your inane comments. We are on the other hand massively concerned about the wasted time and money being squandered by the Labour administration and this Council, who to their shame, have not had an adopted local plan for 40-years ! They are a national laughing stock, but, it is not funny to be a resident who's city has been ridiculed by the national media. It is not funny that millions have been wasted on a process that has never achieved it's objective.

IT'S A DISGRACE !
[quote][p][bold]Hoofarted[/bold] wrote: Hmmmmm (scratches chin in a paranoid wondering way) The lengths bored people go to ;=)[/p][/quote]After reading my posts, you will see the lengths people who take an interest will go to. We are only bored by your inane comments. We are on the other hand massively concerned about the wasted time and money being squandered by the Labour administration and this Council, who to their shame, have not had an adopted local plan for 40-years ! They are a national laughing stock, but, it is not funny to be a resident who's city has been ridiculed by the national media. It is not funny that millions have been wasted on a process that has never achieved it's objective. IT'S A DISGRACE ! Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Thu 10 Jan 13

yorkborn66 says...

Gyspsy Power wrote:
Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?
Maybe he could use the food bank; oops sorry he thinks that’s not necessary as well!
[quote][p][bold]Gyspsy Power[/bold] wrote: Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?[/p][/quote]Maybe he could use the food bank; oops sorry he thinks that’s not necessary as well! yorkborn66
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Thu 10 Jan 13

greenmonkey says...

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Hoofarted While you are at it, ask Dave Merrett why there has only been one LDF Working Group meeting in the last seven months ? At a time when the Local Plan process is urgently needed to be progressed, what does this tell you about the sense of urgency Dave Merrett attaches to it ? The truth is, Merrett is blocking out memebers by regularly cancelling these meetings, so that his group dictate how things are manipulated behind the scenes. Some say that he is stifling debate, but, he is almost stopping it. It's time this shoddy carry on was exposed, and stopped. IT STINKS !,
May not agree on a lot of your views but you are right on this one - 'Working group' is a misnomer - if any councillor tries to propose amendments the ruling group vote it down or simply point out that it is advisory with the cabinet actually implementing any recommendations. It exists to simply provide a veneer of democratic accountability. As for paying £42,000 for yet another 'economic vision' document that is just another excuse for consultants to do something which anyone with half a brain and access to the internet could produce in a couple of days bringing together the latest economic reports and projections to update the last one! Money for old rope in my opinion, but if it convinces an inspector that they know what they are doing that is all we need worry about, eh?
[quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: Hoofarted While you are at it, ask Dave Merrett why there has only been one LDF Working Group meeting in the last seven months ? At a time when the Local Plan process is urgently needed to be progressed, what does this tell you about the sense of urgency Dave Merrett attaches to it ? The truth is, Merrett is blocking out memebers by regularly cancelling these meetings, so that his group dictate how things are manipulated behind the scenes. Some say that he is stifling debate, but, he is almost stopping it. It's time this shoddy carry on was exposed, and stopped. IT STINKS !,[/p][/quote]May not agree on a lot of your views but you are right on this one - 'Working group' is a misnomer - if any councillor tries to propose amendments the ruling group vote it down or simply point out that it is advisory with the cabinet actually implementing any recommendations. It exists to simply provide a veneer of democratic accountability. As for paying £42,000 for yet another 'economic vision' document that is just another excuse for consultants to do something which anyone with half a brain and access to the internet could produce in a couple of days bringing together the latest economic reports and projections to update the last one! Money for old rope in my opinion, but if it convinces an inspector that they know what they are doing that is all we need worry about, eh? greenmonkey
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Thu 10 Jan 13

south bronx red 2 says...

Everybody wastes money.
YCFC owners wasted approx. £75k on chucking ground plans drawn up to move to Monks X. Because they said it wasn't in their best interests.
Heypresto ! Its now the best thing since sliced bread, but having to spend a fortune again.
The same applies to the idiot who didnt press for the dualing of the outer ring road as it was put in.
But as always , collective decisions , no one ever carries the can.
Allowing Tories and others alike to generalise blame on a party basis.
Everybody wastes money. YCFC owners wasted approx. £75k on chucking ground plans drawn up to move to Monks X. Because they said it wasn't in their best interests. Heypresto ! Its now the best thing since sliced bread, but having to spend a fortune again. The same applies to the idiot who didnt press for the dualing of the outer ring road as it was put in. But as always , collective decisions , no one ever carries the can. Allowing Tories and others alike to generalise blame on a party basis. south bronx red 2
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Thu 10 Jan 13

atorycouncil2014 says...

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
atorycouncil2014 wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Gyspsy Power wrote: Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?
He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense. We're in it; their together.
09/01/2013 Cllr Simpson Laing tweets @gerryboy67: Ian Duncan Smith thinks £70 a week JSA is too much. He also recently spent £39 on breakfast, then claimed it back from taxpayer on expenses
Does this means Buda reads TSL's tweets, or that Buda is TSL ?

Some allege that Buda is Coun Alexander, but, judging by the phrasing and politics of Buda's posts, TSL is an equally possible cadidate. Doesn't JA allegedly post under Newton1 ?

Waiting for Buda to come out on this......
Buda and Newton are both Calamity James. Hoofarted is Red Sonja
[quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gyspsy Power[/bold] wrote: Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?[/p][/quote]He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense. We're in it; their together.[/p][/quote]09/01/2013 Cllr Simpson Laing tweets @gerryboy67: Ian Duncan Smith thinks £70 a week JSA is too much. He also recently spent £39 on breakfast, then claimed it back from taxpayer on expenses[/p][/quote]Does this means Buda reads TSL's tweets, or that Buda is TSL ? Some allege that Buda is Coun Alexander, but, judging by the phrasing and politics of Buda's posts, TSL is an equally possible cadidate. Doesn't JA allegedly post under Newton1 ? Waiting for Buda to come out on this......[/p][/quote]Buda and Newton are both Calamity James. Hoofarted is Red Sonja atorycouncil2014
  • Score: 0

8:38pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Politics is a nasty business,

Oi! That's my catchphrase!
[quote]Scarlet Pimpernel wrote: Politics is a nasty business,[/quote] Oi! That's my catchphrase! Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

atorycouncil2014 wrote:
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
atorycouncil2014 wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Gyspsy Power wrote: Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?
He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense. We're in it; their together.
09/01/2013 Cllr Simpson Laing tweets @gerryboy67: Ian Duncan Smith thinks £70 a week JSA is too much. He also recently spent £39 on breakfast, then claimed it back from taxpayer on expenses
Does this means Buda reads TSL's tweets, or that Buda is TSL ? Some allege that Buda is Coun Alexander, but, judging by the phrasing and politics of Buda's posts, TSL is an equally possible cadidate. Doesn't JA allegedly post under Newton1 ? Waiting for Buda to come out on this......
Buda and Newton are both Calamity James. Hoofarted is Red Sonja
Hahahahahahahahahaha
ha!

Paranoia-tastic.
[quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gyspsy Power[/bold] wrote: Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?[/p][/quote]He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense. We're in it; their together.[/p][/quote]09/01/2013 Cllr Simpson Laing tweets @gerryboy67: Ian Duncan Smith thinks £70 a week JSA is too much. He also recently spent £39 on breakfast, then claimed it back from taxpayer on expenses[/p][/quote]Does this means Buda reads TSL's tweets, or that Buda is TSL ? Some allege that Buda is Coun Alexander, but, judging by the phrasing and politics of Buda's posts, TSL is an equally possible cadidate. Doesn't JA allegedly post under Newton1 ? Waiting for Buda to come out on this......[/p][/quote]Buda and Newton are both Calamity James. Hoofarted is Red Sonja[/p][/quote]Hahahahahahahahahaha ha! Paranoia-tastic. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

8:46pm Thu 10 Jan 13

bob the builder says...

Why is anyone surprised - the council can't or won't make any decision without using consultants. Yet no one has raised the subject of investigating this frequent occurrence, so why are most of the council keeping quiet?
Why is anyone surprised - the council can't or won't make any decision without using consultants. Yet no one has raised the subject of investigating this frequent occurrence, so why are most of the council keeping quiet? bob the builder
  • Score: 0

9:02pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
atorycouncil2014 wrote:
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
atorycouncil2014 wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Gyspsy Power wrote: Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?
He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense. We're in it; their together.
09/01/2013 Cllr Simpson Laing tweets @gerryboy67: Ian Duncan Smith thinks £70 a week JSA is too much. He also recently spent £39 on breakfast, then claimed it back from taxpayer on expenses
Does this means Buda reads TSL's tweets, or that Buda is TSL ? Some allege that Buda is Coun Alexander, but, judging by the phrasing and politics of Buda's posts, TSL is an equally possible cadidate. Doesn't JA allegedly post under Newton1 ? Waiting for Buda to come out on this......
Buda and Newton are both Calamity James. Hoofarted is Red Sonja
Hahahahahahahahahaha

ha!

Paranoia-tastic.
Well informed, I'd say.

It all stacks up and is highly likely, based on the language used by the three of them.
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gyspsy Power[/bold] wrote: Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?[/p][/quote]He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense. We're in it; their together.[/p][/quote]09/01/2013 Cllr Simpson Laing tweets @gerryboy67: Ian Duncan Smith thinks £70 a week JSA is too much. He also recently spent £39 on breakfast, then claimed it back from taxpayer on expenses[/p][/quote]Does this means Buda reads TSL's tweets, or that Buda is TSL ? Some allege that Buda is Coun Alexander, but, judging by the phrasing and politics of Buda's posts, TSL is an equally possible cadidate. Doesn't JA allegedly post under Newton1 ? Waiting for Buda to come out on this......[/p][/quote]Buda and Newton are both Calamity James. Hoofarted is Red Sonja[/p][/quote]Hahahahahahahahahaha ha! Paranoia-tastic.[/p][/quote]Well informed, I'd say. It all stacks up and is highly likely, based on the language used by the three of them. Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

9:41pm Thu 10 Jan 13

AnotherPointofView says...

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Buzz Light-year wrote:
atorycouncil2014 wrote:
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
atorycouncil2014 wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Gyspsy Power wrote: Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?
He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense. We're in it; their together.
09/01/2013 Cllr Simpson Laing tweets @gerryboy67: Ian Duncan Smith thinks £70 a week JSA is too much. He also recently spent £39 on breakfast, then claimed it back from taxpayer on expenses
Does this means Buda reads TSL's tweets, or that Buda is TSL ? Some allege that Buda is Coun Alexander, but, judging by the phrasing and politics of Buda's posts, TSL is an equally possible cadidate. Doesn't JA allegedly post under Newton1 ? Waiting for Buda to come out on this......
Buda and Newton are both Calamity James. Hoofarted is Red Sonja
Hahahahahahahahahaha


ha!

Paranoia-tastic.
Well informed, I'd say.

It all stacks up and is highly likely, based on the language used by the three of them.
While your at it, another contributor to this article - greenmonkey - Coun D'Agorne.
[quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gyspsy Power[/bold] wrote: Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?[/p][/quote]He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense. We're in it; their together.[/p][/quote]09/01/2013 Cllr Simpson Laing tweets @gerryboy67: Ian Duncan Smith thinks £70 a week JSA is too much. He also recently spent £39 on breakfast, then claimed it back from taxpayer on expenses[/p][/quote]Does this means Buda reads TSL's tweets, or that Buda is TSL ? Some allege that Buda is Coun Alexander, but, judging by the phrasing and politics of Buda's posts, TSL is an equally possible cadidate. Doesn't JA allegedly post under Newton1 ? Waiting for Buda to come out on this......[/p][/quote]Buda and Newton are both Calamity James. Hoofarted is Red Sonja[/p][/quote]Hahahahahahahahahaha ha! Paranoia-tastic.[/p][/quote]Well informed, I'd say. It all stacks up and is highly likely, based on the language used by the three of them.[/p][/quote]While your at it, another contributor to this article - greenmonkey - Coun D'Agorne. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 0

9:49pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

Look, if this is all true and you're all a bunch of cross-party covert councillors, I want nothing more to do with this website.

Politics attracts some strange people.
Look, if this is all true and you're all a bunch of cross-party covert councillors, I want nothing more to do with this website. Politics attracts some strange people. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

10:58pm Thu 10 Jan 13

capt spaulding says...

Keep sending them in Buzz dont let them dictate on here as well.
Keep sending them in Buzz dont let them dictate on here as well. capt spaulding
  • Score: 0

12:57am Fri 11 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
Look, if this is all true and you're all a bunch of cross-party covert councillors, I want nothing more to do with this website. Politics attracts some strange people.
Very odd thing to say/do ?

What's the problem if they are ?

At least you know they are paying attention, even if they are being deceitful and hostile. It's better than to have your say on this forum to avoid the stench in the council chamber - so much b*llsh*t !
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Look, if this is all true and you're all a bunch of cross-party covert councillors, I want nothing more to do with this website. Politics attracts some strange people.[/p][/quote]Very odd thing to say/do ? What's the problem if they are ? At least you know they are paying attention, even if they are being deceitful and hostile. It's better than to have your say on this forum to avoid the stench in the council chamber - so much b*llsh*t ! Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

7:51am Fri 11 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

Well if, as the theory goes, we have green and labour party councillors posting covertly then it follows that we have conservative and libdem councillors doing the same.
If I'm completely surrounded by secret councillors with their various partisan political agendas... Well it's not really my scene.
It's a bit creepy.
Well if, as the theory goes, we have green and labour party councillors posting covertly then it follows that we have conservative and libdem councillors doing the same. If I'm completely surrounded by secret councillors with their various partisan political agendas... Well it's not really my scene. It's a bit creepy. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

8:58am Fri 11 Jan 13

nearlyman says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
Well if, as the theory goes, we have green and labour party councillors posting covertly then it follows that we have conservative and libdem councillors doing the same.
If I'm completely surrounded by secret councillors with their various partisan political agendas... Well it's not really my scene.
It's a bit creepy.
Double bluff Buzz ?? lol.
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Well if, as the theory goes, we have green and labour party councillors posting covertly then it follows that we have conservative and libdem councillors doing the same. If I'm completely surrounded by secret councillors with their various partisan political agendas... Well it's not really my scene. It's a bit creepy.[/p][/quote]Double bluff Buzz ?? lol. nearlyman
  • Score: 0

9:45am Fri 11 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
Well if, as the theory goes, we have green and labour party councillors posting covertly then it follows that we have conservative and libdem councillors doing the same. If I'm completely surrounded by secret councillors with their various partisan political agendas... Well it's not really my scene. It's a bit creepy.
Very naive of you to expect them not to do this, and that it is anywhere near as creepy as the stuff that happens at COYC Labour cabinet meetings !

As nearlyman says, I think you are bluffing, and it won't stop you commenting.

The universe that you inhabit is indeed light years away, if you think councillors/politici
ans are upfront and honest, but, I doubt that you will buzz off as you threaten to do.
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Well if, as the theory goes, we have green and labour party councillors posting covertly then it follows that we have conservative and libdem councillors doing the same. If I'm completely surrounded by secret councillors with their various partisan political agendas... Well it's not really my scene. It's a bit creepy.[/p][/quote]Very naive of you to expect them not to do this, and that it is anywhere near as creepy as the stuff that happens at COYC Labour cabinet meetings ! As nearlyman says, I think you are bluffing, and it won't stop you commenting. The universe that you inhabit is indeed light years away, if you think councillors/politici ans are upfront and honest, but, I doubt that you will buzz off as you threaten to do. Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

10:29am Fri 11 Jan 13

Hoofarted says...

Reading the likes of Mr Laverack and others on here, could be a superb working study of the depths a human mind can go to. Classic Pavlov dogs technique were by the Bell rings (Opinion posted) that goes against their own bigoted ones and the Laverack Dogs froth, snarl and claim it's a labour conspiracy via the York press forum ;=)

Ding Ding!
Reading the likes of Mr Laverack and others on here, could be a superb working study of the depths a human mind can go to. Classic Pavlov dogs technique were by the Bell rings (Opinion posted) that goes against their own bigoted ones and the Laverack Dogs froth, snarl and claim it's a labour conspiracy via the York press forum ;=) Ding Ding! Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

10:38am Fri 11 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

I think nearlyman meant I'm really a councillor and I'm bluffing that I'm not.

Dude obviously plays poker...



And yeah of course I was being rhetorical.
I think nearlyman meant I'm really a councillor and I'm bluffing that I'm not. Dude obviously plays poker... And yeah of course I was being rhetorical. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

10:39am Fri 11 Jan 13

Ichabod76 says...

Hoofarted wrote:
Reading the likes of Mr Laverack and others on here, could be a superb working study of the depths a human mind can go to. Classic Pavlov dogs technique were by the Bell rings (Opinion posted) that goes against their own bigoted ones and the Laverack Dogs froth, snarl and claim it's a labour conspiracy via the York press forum ;=)

Ding Ding!
I notice you are not denying that you are who your alleged to be ?
[quote][p][bold]Hoofarted[/bold] wrote: Reading the likes of Mr Laverack and others on here, could be a superb working study of the depths a human mind can go to. Classic Pavlov dogs technique were by the Bell rings (Opinion posted) that goes against their own bigoted ones and the Laverack Dogs froth, snarl and claim it's a labour conspiracy via the York press forum ;=) Ding Ding![/p][/quote]I notice you are not denying that you are who your alleged to be ? Ichabod76
  • Score: 0

11:10am Fri 11 Jan 13

jgycfc says...

Tories are only interested in looking after themselves and their mates. Gillies is upset that these consultants aren't his mates is all.
Tories are only interested in looking after themselves and their mates. Gillies is upset that these consultants aren't his mates is all. jgycfc
  • Score: 0

11:36am Fri 11 Jan 13

perplexed says...

atorycouncil2014 wrote:
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
atorycouncil2014 wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
Gyspsy Power wrote: Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?
He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense. We're in it; their together.
09/01/2013 Cllr Simpson Laing tweets @gerryboy67: Ian Duncan Smith thinks £70 a week JSA is too much. He also recently spent £39 on breakfast, then claimed it back from taxpayer on expenses
Does this means Buda reads TSL's tweets, or that Buda is TSL ?

Some allege that Buda is Coun Alexander, but, judging by the phrasing and politics of Buda's posts, TSL is an equally possible cadidate. Doesn't JA allegedly post under Newton1 ?

Waiting for Buda to come out on this......
Buda and Newton are both Calamity James. Hoofarted is Red Sonja
In the immortal words of Kenneth Williams, 'infamy, infamy they have all got it in for me!' The 'paranoia' in some of these posts is rather disturbing!

Politicians of all parties seem to have a problem with transparency when it comes to 'consultants. Only yesterday, we were informed that he amount of British overseas aid money lavished on consultants jumped by 45 per cent in just one month – despite a high-profile ‘crackdown’ on the practice being launched at the same time. Justine Greening is only now considering whether more of the consultants’ work could be done by her own civil servants!

May I suggest that all political parties and their ' devoted minions' stop trying to blame each other and get on with the job in hand.
[quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]atorycouncil2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gyspsy Power[/bold] wrote: Ian Gillies. The man who threw a strop when free buffets were stopped at meetings. How can he complain about financial waste?[/p][/quote]He's just taking his parties political line: IDS says £70 in JSA is too much; then claims back a £40 breakfast at the Tax Payers expense. We're in it; their together.[/p][/quote]09/01/2013 Cllr Simpson Laing tweets @gerryboy67: Ian Duncan Smith thinks £70 a week JSA is too much. He also recently spent £39 on breakfast, then claimed it back from taxpayer on expenses[/p][/quote]Does this means Buda reads TSL's tweets, or that Buda is TSL ? Some allege that Buda is Coun Alexander, but, judging by the phrasing and politics of Buda's posts, TSL is an equally possible cadidate. Doesn't JA allegedly post under Newton1 ? Waiting for Buda to come out on this......[/p][/quote]Buda and Newton are both Calamity James. Hoofarted is Red Sonja[/p][/quote]In the immortal words of Kenneth Williams, 'infamy, infamy they have all got it in for me!' The 'paranoia' in some of these posts is rather disturbing! Politicians of all parties seem to have a problem with transparency when it comes to 'consultants. Only yesterday, we were informed that he amount of British overseas aid money lavished on consultants jumped by 45 per cent in just one month – despite a high-profile ‘crackdown’ on the practice being launched at the same time. Justine Greening is only now considering whether more of the consultants’ work could be done by her own civil servants! May I suggest that all political parties and their ' devoted minions' stop trying to blame each other and get on with the job in hand. perplexed
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Hoofarted says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
Hoofarted wrote:
Reading the likes of Mr Laverack and others on here, could be a superb working study of the depths a human mind can go to. Classic Pavlov dogs technique were by the Bell rings (Opinion posted) that goes against their own bigoted ones and the Laverack Dogs froth, snarl and claim it's a labour conspiracy via the York press forum ;=)

Ding Ding!
I notice you are not denying that you are who your alleged to be ?
Ding~! ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hoofarted[/bold] wrote: Reading the likes of Mr Laverack and others on here, could be a superb working study of the depths a human mind can go to. Classic Pavlov dogs technique were by the Bell rings (Opinion posted) that goes against their own bigoted ones and the Laverack Dogs froth, snarl and claim it's a labour conspiracy via the York press forum ;=) Ding Ding![/p][/quote]I notice you are not denying that you are who your alleged to be ?[/p][/quote]Ding~! ;-) Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Ichabod76 says...

Hoofarted wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote:
Hoofarted wrote:
Reading the likes of Mr Laverack and others on here, could be a superb working study of the depths a human mind can go to. Classic Pavlov dogs technique were by the Bell rings (Opinion posted) that goes against their own bigoted ones and the Laverack Dogs froth, snarl and claim it's a labour conspiracy via the York press forum ;=)

Ding Ding!
I notice you are not denying that you are who your alleged to be ?
Ding~! ;-)
thank you for your IP address
[quote][p][bold]Hoofarted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hoofarted[/bold] wrote: Reading the likes of Mr Laverack and others on here, could be a superb working study of the depths a human mind can go to. Classic Pavlov dogs technique were by the Bell rings (Opinion posted) that goes against their own bigoted ones and the Laverack Dogs froth, snarl and claim it's a labour conspiracy via the York press forum ;=) Ding Ding![/p][/quote]I notice you are not denying that you are who your alleged to be ?[/p][/quote]Ding~! ;-)[/p][/quote]thank you for your IP address Ichabod76
  • Score: 0

2:10pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Hoofarted says...

Ichabod76 wrote:
Hoofarted wrote:
Ichabod76 wrote:
Hoofarted wrote:
Reading the likes of Mr Laverack and others on here, could be a superb working study of the depths a human mind can go to. Classic Pavlov dogs technique were by the Bell rings (Opinion posted) that goes against their own bigoted ones and the Laverack Dogs froth, snarl and claim it's a labour conspiracy via the York press forum ;=)

Ding Ding!
I notice you are not denying that you are who your alleged to be ?
Ding~! ;-)
thank you for your IP address
When you destroy their argument, the paranoia comes. "That name has to be her! or it's him! it's them!"

When the paranoia is highlighted as ridiculous, then the threats arrive. IP address threats now lol

Bring it on sore loser.

Ding !
[quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hoofarted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ichabod76[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hoofarted[/bold] wrote: Reading the likes of Mr Laverack and others on here, could be a superb working study of the depths a human mind can go to. Classic Pavlov dogs technique were by the Bell rings (Opinion posted) that goes against their own bigoted ones and the Laverack Dogs froth, snarl and claim it's a labour conspiracy via the York press forum ;=) Ding Ding![/p][/quote]I notice you are not denying that you are who your alleged to be ?[/p][/quote]Ding~! ;-)[/p][/quote]thank you for your IP address[/p][/quote]When you destroy their argument, the paranoia comes. "That name has to be her! or it's him! it's them!" When the paranoia is highlighted as ridiculous, then the threats arrive. IP address threats now lol Bring it on sore loser. Ding ! Hoofarted
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

jgycfc wrote:
Tories are only interested in looking after themselves and their mates. Gillies is upset that these consultants aren't his mates is all.
No they are mates of the left-wing officers who have wasted hundreds of thousands, with the help of Coun Merrett.
[quote][p][bold]jgycfc[/bold] wrote: Tories are only interested in looking after themselves and their mates. Gillies is upset that these consultants aren't his mates is all.[/p][/quote]No they are mates of the left-wing officers who have wasted hundreds of thousands, with the help of Coun Merrett. Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Hoofarted wrote:
Reading the likes of Mr Laverack and others on here, could be a superb working study of the depths a human mind can go to. Classic Pavlov dogs technique were by the Bell rings (Opinion posted) that goes against their own bigoted ones and the Laverack Dogs froth, snarl and claim it's a labour conspiracy via the York press forum ;=) Ding Ding!
Continuing with your distractions shows how ignorant you are.

Still waiting for you to tell us what the abbreviations mean (for SHLAA, SHMA, AHVS/AHEVA) ?

How many times have these been done, and how many have been a waste of money ?

At least objectors know something about the subject, whereas devious, deceitful Labour politicians are only interested in wasting taxpayers in pursuit of their ideological objectives.
[quote][p][bold]Hoofarted[/bold] wrote: Reading the likes of Mr Laverack and others on here, could be a superb working study of the depths a human mind can go to. Classic Pavlov dogs technique were by the Bell rings (Opinion posted) that goes against their own bigoted ones and the Laverack Dogs froth, snarl and claim it's a labour conspiracy via the York press forum ;=) Ding Ding![/p][/quote]Continuing with your distractions shows how ignorant you are. Still waiting for you to tell us what the abbreviations mean (for SHLAA, SHMA, AHVS/AHEVA) ? How many times have these been done, and how many have been a waste of money ? At least objectors know something about the subject, whereas devious, deceitful Labour politicians are only interested in wasting taxpayers in pursuit of their ideological objectives. Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

4:25pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Please insert 'money' after 'taxpayers' above.
Please insert 'money' after 'taxpayers' above. Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

8:24pm Fri 11 Jan 13

atorycouncil2014 says...

And for the record I also know Calamity James employs his Labour students at the university to bombard these forums - see the Cllr Steward article.

All the while telling the world on twitter how abhorrent it is for people to do what he does
And for the record I also know Calamity James employs his Labour students at the university to bombard these forums - see the Cllr Steward article. All the while telling the world on twitter how abhorrent it is for people to do what he does atorycouncil2014
  • Score: 0

11:20am Sat 12 Jan 13

Dave Taylor says...

Labour used to complain bitterly at the LibDems' waste of public money on consultants, but the sums have rocketed since Labour took power.

Most of this miserable waste has been caused by them backing the massive expansion at Monk's Cross, consultants for the stadium and the sell-off of our other leisure resources.

Now there's the addition expenditure on more consultants due to the collapse of the Local Development Framework which was predicted to happen as a result of the appalling Monk's Cross decision.

Those are all direct costs to the taxpayer. Not to mention the £50million (Drivas Jonas Deloitte (more consultants') figures!) in lost trade that city centre businesses stand to face each year as a result.
Labour used to complain bitterly at the LibDems' waste of public money on consultants, but the sums have rocketed since Labour took power. Most of this miserable waste has been caused by them backing the massive expansion at Monk's Cross, consultants for the stadium and the sell-off of our other leisure resources. Now there's the addition expenditure on more consultants due to the collapse of the Local Development Framework which was predicted to happen as a result of the appalling Monk's Cross decision. Those are all direct costs to the taxpayer. Not to mention the £50million (Drivas Jonas Deloitte (more consultants') figures!) in lost trade that city centre businesses stand to face each year as a result. Dave Taylor
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Sat 12 Jan 13

PKH says...

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
PKH wrote:
TheTruthHurts wrote: The costs for this LDF just keep mounting up, we are already over a million pounds on this. By 2015 the cost for this will be Millions of pounds...... and thats assuming that the council finally get it right. I'm not convinced that they know what they are doing with this. I think its fair to say that on the subject of the LDF Merret has been and continues to be a total failure.
Whilst I do not agree with Labours handling of the LDF, don't forget that the previous rejected LDF which was heavily criticised was mainly the work of the Libdems who were propped up the Tories. So all parties are tainted.
Don't blame the Lib-Dems - blame the left-wing officers behind the LDF.

Officers advise, and members decide !

The information the officers provide leads members up the garden path, and they are given options that steer decisions in the direction officers want. The system is massively manipulated by officers, and Labour know who's side they are on. The LDF failure is down to Merrett, Simpson-Laing and their cabal of left-wing officers.

If the LDF that was to go to EIP last year was to serve York for 20 years, how can major reports used for the Core Strategy now be out of date ? They were meant to inform York's future for 20-years, not 20-months. This is an excuse to waste more money, and any tweaking could have been done by officers. There is no need to do the whole exercise again, and the previous reports should have been used. At a time when money is tight, this council is hellbent on wasting it, to cause as much pain and mischief as possible, and then blame the government and the cuts. Alexander's brief and agenda is transparent - cause mayhem in York, and his reward will be a safe seat at the next election.

Politics is a nasty business, and Labour are the real nasty party, and in York that is very nasty indeed.

Kick em out in 2015 !
So your are saying the Libdems were spineless and as they were propped up by the Tories them too.
[quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PKH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: The costs for this LDF just keep mounting up, we are already over a million pounds on this. By 2015 the cost for this will be Millions of pounds...... and thats assuming that the council finally get it right. I'm not convinced that they know what they are doing with this. I think its fair to say that on the subject of the LDF Merret has been and continues to be a total failure.[/p][/quote]Whilst I do not agree with Labours handling of the LDF, don't forget that the previous rejected LDF which was heavily criticised was mainly the work of the Libdems who were propped up the Tories. So all parties are tainted.[/p][/quote]Don't blame the Lib-Dems - blame the left-wing officers behind the LDF. Officers advise, and members decide ! The information the officers provide leads members up the garden path, and they are given options that steer decisions in the direction officers want. The system is massively manipulated by officers, and Labour know who's side they are on. The LDF failure is down to Merrett, Simpson-Laing and their cabal of left-wing officers. If the LDF that was to go to EIP last year was to serve York for 20 years, how can major reports used for the Core Strategy now be out of date ? They were meant to inform York's future for 20-years, not 20-months. This is an excuse to waste more money, and any tweaking could have been done by officers. There is no need to do the whole exercise again, and the previous reports should have been used. At a time when money is tight, this council is hellbent on wasting it, to cause as much pain and mischief as possible, and then blame the government and the cuts. Alexander's brief and agenda is transparent - cause mayhem in York, and his reward will be a safe seat at the next election. Politics is a nasty business, and Labour are the real nasty party, and in York that is very nasty indeed. Kick em out in 2015 ![/p][/quote]So your are saying the Libdems were spineless and as they were propped up by the Tories them too. PKH
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Sat 12 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

PKH wrote:
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
PKH wrote:
TheTruthHurts wrote: The costs for this LDF just keep mounting up, we are already over a million pounds on this. By 2015 the cost for this will be Millions of pounds...... and thats assuming that the council finally get it right. I'm not convinced that they know what they are doing with this. I think its fair to say that on the subject of the LDF Merret has been and continues to be a total failure.
Whilst I do not agree with Labours handling of the LDF, don't forget that the previous rejected LDF which was heavily criticised was mainly the work of the Libdems who were propped up the Tories. So all parties are tainted.
Don't blame the Lib-Dems - blame the left-wing officers behind the LDF.

Officers advise, and members decide !

The information the officers provide leads members up the garden path, and they are given options that steer decisions in the direction officers want. The system is massively manipulated by officers, and Labour know who's side they are on. The LDF failure is down to Merrett, Simpson-Laing and their cabal of left-wing officers.

If the LDF that was to go to EIP last year was to serve York for 20 years, how can major reports used for the Core Strategy now be out of date ? They were meant to inform York's future for 20-years, not 20-months. This is an excuse to waste more money, and any tweaking could have been done by officers. There is no need to do the whole exercise again, and the previous reports should have been used. At a time when money is tight, this council is hellbent on wasting it, to cause as much pain and mischief as possible, and then blame the government and the cuts. Alexander's brief and agenda is transparent - cause mayhem in York, and his reward will be a safe seat at the next election.

Politics is a nasty business, and Labour are the real nasty party, and in York that is very nasty indeed.

Kick em out in 2015 !
So your are saying the Libdems were spineless and as they were propped up by the Tories them too.
Actually, Steve Galloway at least listened to concerns expressed by those who understood the flawed and cynical approach by officers to the development of the Core Strategy. He did his best to open up dialogue between officers and interested stakeholders, but, officers manipulated the process and only put forward narrow options to get the results they wanted. Basically it was a sham. Steve Galloway was always attacked by Coun Simpson-Laing, and had little or no support. I'm pretty sure that SG realised that officers loyalties lie with Labour, and in the end the left controlled the LDF process, and always have.
[quote][p][bold]PKH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PKH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheTruthHurts[/bold] wrote: The costs for this LDF just keep mounting up, we are already over a million pounds on this. By 2015 the cost for this will be Millions of pounds...... and thats assuming that the council finally get it right. I'm not convinced that they know what they are doing with this. I think its fair to say that on the subject of the LDF Merret has been and continues to be a total failure.[/p][/quote]Whilst I do not agree with Labours handling of the LDF, don't forget that the previous rejected LDF which was heavily criticised was mainly the work of the Libdems who were propped up the Tories. So all parties are tainted.[/p][/quote]Don't blame the Lib-Dems - blame the left-wing officers behind the LDF. Officers advise, and members decide ! The information the officers provide leads members up the garden path, and they are given options that steer decisions in the direction officers want. The system is massively manipulated by officers, and Labour know who's side they are on. The LDF failure is down to Merrett, Simpson-Laing and their cabal of left-wing officers. If the LDF that was to go to EIP last year was to serve York for 20 years, how can major reports used for the Core Strategy now be out of date ? They were meant to inform York's future for 20-years, not 20-months. This is an excuse to waste more money, and any tweaking could have been done by officers. There is no need to do the whole exercise again, and the previous reports should have been used. At a time when money is tight, this council is hellbent on wasting it, to cause as much pain and mischief as possible, and then blame the government and the cuts. Alexander's brief and agenda is transparent - cause mayhem in York, and his reward will be a safe seat at the next election. Politics is a nasty business, and Labour are the real nasty party, and in York that is very nasty indeed. Kick em out in 2015 ![/p][/quote]So your are saying the Libdems were spineless and as they were propped up by the Tories them too.[/p][/quote]Actually, Steve Galloway at least listened to concerns expressed by those who understood the flawed and cynical approach by officers to the development of the Core Strategy. He did his best to open up dialogue between officers and interested stakeholders, but, officers manipulated the process and only put forward narrow options to get the results they wanted. Basically it was a sham. Steve Galloway was always attacked by Coun Simpson-Laing, and had little or no support. I'm pretty sure that SG realised that officers loyalties lie with Labour, and in the end the left controlled the LDF process, and always have. Scarlet Pimpernel
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Mon 14 Jan 13

meme says...

CoYC owe a fortune IE WE OWE IT: ITS OUR MONEY AND WE PAY NOT COYC!
we borrowed to fund a 'living' wage
We borowed to fund a barge
We are spending over £1.5 million on furniture for the new HQ of CoYC
we spend lots on consultants
When will reality , the fact we owe too much and realistic budgeting actually happen
Or am I stupid to believe it ever will regardless of who is in power?
CoYC owe a fortune IE WE OWE IT: ITS OUR MONEY AND WE PAY NOT COYC! we borrowed to fund a 'living' wage We borowed to fund a barge We are spending over £1.5 million on furniture for the new HQ of CoYC we spend lots on consultants When will reality , the fact we owe too much and realistic budgeting actually happen Or am I stupid to believe it ever will regardless of who is in power? meme
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree