Posted by Chris Paul on Saturday Jan 27, 20:24
Anyone visiting John Leech's own website www.john-leech.libdems.org.uk will find that the masthead there partially reflects the reality.
It claims John is working for a list of wards and areas which DOES NOT include Chorlton Park. A search on the term "Chorlton Park" finds two items. One of these is John's own description of himself as a councillor for the area. The other a rather confused story about social housing which could be written about any ward with a residential building site in it.
A screen grab is available at my blog chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com. As Cllr John Leech MP shows no sign of giving up a second job he cannot manage to cover properly should the Council or the Electoral Commission change the rules so that he must resign? And if that isn't managed should it be considered ultra vires for a councillor to transfer money they get from the people of Manchester to be a councillor to a constituency office which has a very considerable party political element?
+ tags coming soon
( 23 Comments )
John Holliker
Monday Jan 29, 10:46
As ever Chris, it's a decent point. Sincerely it is. Only it's not Watergate is it? It's also difficult to take a moral high ground when Labour people like Andrew Gwynne etc., have also retained council and MP portfolios.
Leech is weak as weak can be but maybe it's time to take him on with policy arguments (if the Lib Dems have any).
Dave
Monday Jan 29, 17:05
What a tragedy! Mr Leech forgets Chorlton Park in the list of areas he covers as an MP.
Also in the news today, the Home Office under Labour cocks up again for about the upteenth time and Dr Reid refuses to budge http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6308641.stm
Also in the news today. Labour MP Des Turner, who... (get this) campaigns against drink driving, gets caught doing what? That's right, drink driving
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/6310049.stm
Interesting don't you think!
peter h
Monday Jan 29, 17:42
what's a blogspot chris? get it from your labour of love did you? 3 weeks penicillin and no alcohol again?
peter h
Monday Jan 29, 17:45
and tell me, what's the difference between John Leech being both a councillor and an MP, and Gordon Brown, for example, being both Chancellor of the Exchequer and an MP? Both represent 1 man trying to do 2 jobs which clash in respect of that man's time.
John Leech
Monday Jan 29, 22:43
Peter
Chris and co. raise a pertinent issue about Leech's (in)ability to do the job of councillor and MP at the same time. And the extra cash he trousers from the public purse that is used for those p*ss-poor mail merged letters claiming he has cured cancer. Or something.
That's fair play. I'd rather have a Councillor for my area who does the job full-time..not somebody who is in the Town Hall when I'd expect him to be in Westminster and vice-versa.
It's just the Labour hypocrisy I don't get. Ok, attach Leech on this issue...only a certain Labour MP no more than 15 miles away remains a councillor too!
Dave - School for scandal...Des Turner or Mark Oaten's coffee table antics...and remember John Leech originally backed him for the leadership contest. What a great judge of character...pass the Andrex eh?
peter h
Tuesday Jan 30, 17:57
I don't think it's possible for john to be both a councillor and an mp and do both jobs properly. He should give one up - presumably his council seat.
I was merely pointing out that the practice is widespread through parliament in different ways, but with the same result.
For what it's worth, though, why you should expect fulltime councillors? Surely councillors are supposed to be members of the community, not paid employees of the community, and just get expenses?
There's also an argument for mps being part timers too, whose role is to set overall policy and oversee the fulltime executive (Civil Service). There's a lot to be said for doing that, rather than having politicians with relatively little experience of the real world.
Chris Paul
Thursday Feb 01, 12:25
http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/01/cllr-john-leech-mp-not-working-for.html
The comparison with Gwynne seems much fairer than the one with those holding ministerial posts.
I don't know Mr Gwynne or why he is retaining his Council seat in Reddish North or wherever. But I do expect he is representing that ward better than JL is representing Chorlton Park.
Some back bench councillors in both parties are effectively full time (or at least include on other occupation or business in their RMI) but I think the general idea is 14 hours for back bench, another 7 for deputy or scrutiny chair, another 7 for exec.
Fine with a part time or even a full time job in Manchester with lots of time off or weekend and evening work. But not fine on top of a parliamentary career in London. Yesterday Leech was not at Council though the LDs did try in Council to big up his rather pathetic police debate in which he (a) admitted budget balanced for coming year and (b) insulted Anne Coffey MP. He is the weakest link. He should be voted off asap.
Ministerial posts are surely more akin to holding an Executive portfolio on Council, being a team leader in a work situation. Having said that I would support some better arrangements to assist Ministers with constituency matters.
But doesn't Leech pretend to be number three or four in the Lib Dem transport team anyway?
Thomas - are all these Lib Dem (ex Labour!!! hah) comments still coming from IP addresses controlled by Lib Dem councillors, MPs and paid officials?
That's chronic stupidity isn't it?
Alan
Thursday Feb 01, 17:37
It doesn't matter who they are or what party they work for, there should be a 1 year transition, if needed, then a newly elected MP should give up their council seat.
sedgelypark
Thursday Feb 01, 21:59
Don't you just love Tessa Jowell's perfect putdown of Two Jobs (see the other side of the page)when he pipsqueaks about another pointless Fib Dem referendum on the Manchester casino when she points out to the boy wonder that local consualtion is a central part of the process.
So let's get away from Christies etc as other posters have urged. Is Leech really that thick or is he merely out of his depth? Discuss?
And is Leech going to oppose the casino like he did the Commonwealth Games until it proves to be a success and he and the Fibs have to do yet another about face.
Just think if the Fibs has been running Manchester we'd have never made a bid for the Commonwealth Games and City would still be Maine Road and East Manchester would still be a wasteland.
That's the Fibs for you...always knocking stuff but with no ideas of their own.
And look what happens when they do bid for a big event in Liverpool. A total mess and a fiasco on the horizon.
So come on you Fibs crawl out from under your stones in the Town Hall and get stuck in.
John Holliker
Friday Feb 02, 11:23
Hold on..have I missed something here? Why is a huge Casino in East Manchester such a godsend? Don’t the moral/ethical costs outweigh the other ‘benefits? - look at the level of consumer debt/gambling addiction across the UK. Isn’t Blackpool’s need for Regen far greater?
This self-congratulatory crowing and toadying is a huge turn off. Yes, Manchester has improved fantastically under Labour, despite Lib Dem attempts deride and oppose the Commonwealth games/Urbis et al. No other political party would have achieved this.
Only I don’t want to be living in a London clone-town by 2020, or a city of displaced Mancunians pushed aside for some yuppiefication project.
This persistent pandering to the middle/business-class agenda is a betrayal of Labour's core values.
Alan
Friday Feb 02, 13:36
The casino creates jobs, brings something new to Manchester and provides the city with something unique. You have an issue with 'pandering' to the middle/ business class John but no problem with pandering to those who have no self control when it comes to their own money!. It's all about choice, they have a choice as to whether they part with their money or not just like I have a choice to drink or not, smoke or not and the same ways in which scallies have the choice to knock someone out or not. It is their choice and I have no sympathy for them if they choose the wrong one. To me pandering to these people prevents progress and links strongly to the ever increasing 'do gooder' culture that is prevailing in this country.
John Holliker
Friday Feb 02, 13:52
Alan
We'll disagree on this. Ok, mine's a moral/idealistic argument and please don't be insulted but your point of view is a little uncomfortably Thatcherite and very sweeping. No self-control=low income/working class folk?
It's always the have-nots who suffer most from gambling addiction and the lure of megabucks being around the corner, whether it's the National Lottery (a tax in any other name) of a super casino.
Personal debt is horibly out of control and has helped to fuel the UK's economic growth over the last 15 years or so. Good for you on having self-control..but you're attitude is very "not my concern"...which I hope is not representative of most people innvolved in local politics these days.
peter h
Friday Feb 02, 17:31
not forgetting, of course, that the likely owner is a south african, so all the profits will leave the country and be a nett cash loss for uk, that the guy, allegedly breached sanctions in apartheid days, and a fat percentage of the jobs, notably the construction, will go to migrant workers any way. So the financial arguments are not what they seem, even before you get to john's moral arguments.
I'm with john on the morality of it. If you want to regenerate the area get something worthwhile in.
peter h
Friday Feb 02, 23:02
re your comment about personal debt, did you know, john, that average personal debt in this country is now 140% of annual income? That is frightening. and it happened under gordon brown's tutelage
Alan
Saturday Feb 03, 10:13
It's happened Peter because people have taken out loans that they can't afford to pay back, they get credit cards and spend to the max. I'm sorry but to say that at least part of the blame shouldn't lie with the individual is ridiculous. As for your 'sum' Jogn relating to no self control = low income/ working class; that's not what I was implying and it's by no means true. To me its a simple choice, do we have a nanny state who protects the minority from their lack of self control/ stupidity thereby affecting the majority; or do we allow people to make the choice when it comes to their own finances and how they want to spend them.
peter h
Saturday Feb 03, 20:34
not true. we live in a consumer society where people are constantly bombarded with imprecations to buy more and more, where status and success equals property and possessions, and then they are cajoled into borrowing money to live beyond their means, and then they are screwed by rapacious banks for interest, and they end up in an endless debt cycle. I know a single unemployed mother of 3 on benefits who was given £7000 credit on credit cards she should never have been given, and guess what happens? She's in debt for the rest of her life because her kids constantly want £100 trainers, flat screen tvs, PS3s and so on and she can't bear to see her kids dressed in crap clothes . Call it what you want Alan. To me she is primarily a victim of capitalist greed, not a fool.
Alan
Sunday Feb 04, 10:29
I used to bombard my Mum for all sorts, I wanted a playstation, £100 trainers etc, what kid doesn't. My Mum said NO!! That's the difference! As for signing off on a £7k credit card, I agree, banks should better vet their potential customers. Having said that I have 5 credit cards and 1 charge card. If I add together the total amount I could borrow on those cards then we're talking over £100k, the charge card having an unlimited borrowing amount. Now I want a 52 inch flatscreen, I also want a BMW 6 Series or maybe an Aston Martin. Why do I not go out and buy these things right now, because I know that even though I could, I wouldn't ever be able to pay it back! To suggest that people cannot understand this fairly simple mathematical logic is ridiculous, I'm sorry!
peter h
Sunday Feb 04, 18:30
I once bought an aston martin. got home and couldn't get it through the bloody gate, and had to take it back. Owned it for an hour - probably some kind of record. So don't get one alan. theyre too wide.
And crass.
You're taking an unduly harsh look at people. They are bombarded constantly with adverts and tv programs and newspapers extolling the virtues of consumer goods and the status they confer. You CAN'T then blame them for falling for it. To do so is to bury your head in the sand.
Alan
Monday Feb 05, 08:54
What I'm trying to say Peter is that they're not blameless and have to take at least a portion of the responsibility for their actions. Lets compare it to the actions of the German people between 1933 and 1945, the state told them to hate Jews and so caused the murder and annihilation of over 6 million people. Do we accept the typical phrase of 'I was under orders' or 'there was nothing I could do, it was the propoganda that made me hate them' I think not!. Although rather an extreme example I think it highlights the main point that I am trying to put across. Everyone, ultimately has a choice, granted the banks and the government have to take their share of the blame but so does the individual!
Chris Paul
Saturday Feb 10, 01:12
http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/01/cllr-john-leech-mp-not-working-for.html
Lib Dem Liverpool have just decided not to support The Pops after six years doing so. Last year they were exlaining how the subsidy paid itself back five or six fold. This year they are pulling the plug.
This is to minimise the rise in council tax after they have been artifically distorting it for the last four or five years. They really are flakey. Liverpool will surely give them the bum's rush very soon.
On the referendum question I'd just like to ask Mr Leech - who is presumably monitoring this site - why it is that he wants one for this when any serious decision in a Lib Dem authority is NOT followed by a call for a referendum?
For example stealing a good part of Sefton Park in Liverpool for a football stadium, or extending Sophia Gardens in Cardiff into unique city centre parkland. And they complain about an acre or two of Heaton Park.
It really is a case of do as I say, not as I do. The comments in Liverpool's vision office which I visited today were almost all about how small minded and unadventurous the council is. Which is sad for a city celebrating its 800th anniversary by withdrawing funding from a well established pop festival.
Antibush
Saturday Feb 17, 09:17
http://bioknoppix.hpcf.upr.edu/Members/midas/levaquin
Watch subject. Bush and the Republicans were not protecting us on 9-11, and we aren't a lot safer now. We may be more afraid due to george bush, but are we safer? Being fearful does not necessarily make one safer. Fear can cause people to hide and cower. What do you think? Is killing thousands of innocent civilians okay when you are doing a little government makeover?
Our country is in debt until forever, we don't have jobs, and we live in fear. We have invaded a country and been responsible for thousands of deaths.
The more people that the government puts in jails, the safer we are told to think we are. The real terrorists are wherever they are, but they aren't living in a country with bars on the windows. We are.
online cialis
Sunday Mar 11, 08:01
http://s-url.net/02yi/
Nice site. Thanks!
guitar bags
Friday Mar 16, 15:55
http://ifmenosserna.blogspot.com/2007/03/guitar-bags.html
Cool site. Thank you:-)
These comments are owned by the person that posted them. They are not necessarily indicative of public opinion and their content has not been checked for accuracy. If you find a comment you think violates our Terms of Use please report it.
Sorry, posting on this entry is disabled to prevent comment spam.
