|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 24, 2017 1:18:37 GMT
I remember some vaguely similar kerfuffle in Medway (River ward) in which the Conservative victor of a by-election was wrongly disqualified over some employment issue and then stood in a second by-election which he lost
|
|
|
|
Post by timokane on Mar 24, 2017 1:19:25 GMT
Just because Blackburn with Darwen became a UA in the mid-90s doesn't mean that Blackburn is no longer in Lancashire. The successful candidate was therefore ineligible. There's no therefore about it. The test is whether Blackburn with Darwen council controls Holden's employment. If they don't then result stands. If he was then why was it not pointed out earlier and who objected ? Sour Grapes. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Mar 24, 2017 1:22:54 GMT
There's no therefore about it. The test is whether Blackburn with Darwen council controls Holden's employment. Those who are based closer to that ward might know more about whether 'Lancashire Growth' has any dealings with, say, Lancashire Police or the Lord-Lieutenant. Unitary status did not stop Blackburn coming under Lancashire for those purposes. I'd be very surprised if the UA council is directly employing the successful candidate. If that is the only criterion for disqualification, then it would appear that the RO has made an error. However, I think the definition of a politically restricted post is rather wider than that. Whether Growth Lancashire has any dealings with Lancashire Police or the Lord-Lieutenant is not the point. Davıd Boothroyd helpfully linked upthread to Growth Lancashire's website, which says (my emphasis): That would mean that anybody employed by Growth Lancashire is disqualified from being a member of any of the councils which own Growth Lancashire. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312 
|
Post by maxque on Mar 24, 2017 1:28:24 GMT
There's no therefore about it. The test is whether Blackburn with Darwen council controls Holden's employment. Those who are based closer to that ward might know more about whether 'Lancashire Growth' has any dealings with, say, Lancashire Police or the Lord-Lieutenant. Unitary status did not stop Blackburn coming under Lancashire for those purposes. I'd be very surprised if the UA council is directly employing the successful candidate. If that is the only criterion for disqualification, then it would appear that the RO has made an error. However, I think the definition of a politically restricted post is rather wider than that. The law is clear. The court will have to determine if "Lancashire Growth" is under the control of the Blackburn with Darwen Council. I suppose the answer is in the statutes of Lancashire Growth. Lancashire Growth offers services in the UA, but that's not the question. The police and the lord-lieutenant has nothing to do with it, not do the boundaries of Lancashire (because business names are irrelevent to that, I doubt "Dorset Windows" refuses to deal with a customer dealing 0.5 miles outside of Dorset or than "Shropshire Flooring" might not accept jobs in Ludlow, because it's too far away from Oswestry. For the record, Lancashire Growth was called Regenerate Pennine Lancashire until last year. Is Pennine Lancashire a different area? That whole argument is irrelevent, I would say. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,137
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 24, 2017 1:32:20 GMT
For the record, Lancashire Growth was called Regenerate Pennine Lancashire until last year. Is Pennine Lancashire a different area? That whole argument is irrelevent, I would say. Yes, it's not a great website, but every page you load up produces a pop-up message notifying about the name change. A link to their latest newsletter suggests that Blackpool (which is hardly the Pennines) now comes under their definition of Lancashire for the company's purposes. The organisation gives an address in Accrington, but I'm not sure how relevant that is to unravelling this mystery. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 24, 2017 1:34:08 GMT
I'd be very surprised if the UA council is directly employing the successful candidate. If that is the only criterion for disqualification, then it would appear that the RO has made an error. However, I think the definition of a politically restricted post is rather wider than that. Subsection 1 (aa) appears to go wider than that. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Mar 24, 2017 1:35:28 GMT
For the record, Lancashire Growth was called Regenerate Pennine Lancashire until last year. Is Pennine Lancashire a different area? That whole argument is irrelevent, I would say. Yes, it's not a great website, but every page you load up produces a pop-up message notifying about the name change. A link to their latest newsletter suggests that Blackpool (which is hardly the Pennines) now comes under their definition of Lancashire for the company's purposes. The organisation gives an address in Accrington, but I'm not sure how relevant that is to unravelling this mystery. Well, that should be clearer tomorrow, whether Blackburn with Darwen Council is one of the owners of Lancashire Growth should be easy to figure out (and if not, it ought to be, it's a local authority after all, transparency should be expected). Possible the UA is a an owner, or it might just give funds against services (which would make it a service provider then, so, no issue I would assume, as it would potentially disqualify most of a population of a LA, because they might work for a company with a contract with the LA, with often no knowledge by the employee). |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,137
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 24, 2017 2:02:46 GMT
This mention of the offending corporation on the council website makes things about as clear as mud as to whether it is an 'owner' thereof.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Mar 24, 2017 2:10:14 GMT
This mention of the offending corporation on the council website makes things about as clear as mud as to whether it is an 'owner' thereof. If only UK was like Quebec and there was an open and free registry of business listing various things, including owners... |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,137
|
Post by Foggy on Mar 24, 2017 2:20:34 GMT
This mention of the offending corporation on the council website makes things about as clear as mud as to whether it is an 'owner' thereof. If only UK was like Quebec and there was an open and free registry of business listing various things, including owners... Well, there's Companies House... Are the regions and municipalities in Québec (and their websites!) really that much more straightforward than those of local authorities in England? |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Mar 24, 2017 2:26:52 GMT
If only UK was like Quebec and there was an open and free registry of business listing various things, including owners... Well, there's Companies House... Are the regions and municipalities in Québec (and their websites!) really that much more straightforward than those of local authorities in England? I meant than the Quebec equivalent of Companies House is very staight forward. List of members of the board of directors and list of all owners. Which is lacking, for the latter, on Comapnies House (through, for some aspects it's way more detailled than Quebec). UK LA websites are way more complete and useful than Quebec too, for the record. I'm jealous of that, but all that information is an issue sometimes. It's hard to find what you need sometimes (and from doing by-election profiles before, some councils have dreadful navigation). |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Mar 24, 2017 2:33:14 GMT
If only UK was like Quebec and there was an open and free registry of business listing various things, including owners... Well, there's Companies House... Are the regions and municipalities in Québec (and their websites!) really that much more straightforward than those of local authorities in England? The 2012 financial statement (the later ones list the company accounts as dormant instead of null with a list of guarantors) lists Blakcburn with Darwen, Burnley, Hyndburn, Lancashire, Pendle and Rossendale as the members (but it may have changed, for exemple, the 2011 list had Ribble Valley on the list, too). |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 24, 2017 2:34:21 GMT
What does this mean? Assuming this is serious, I'm guessing one of the candidates has died. That has been deleted. What did it say? |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 24, 2017 2:50:03 GMT
Going on the website of the now defunct Regenerate Pennine Lancashire it says: "Regenerate is owned by the six Pennine Lancashire local authorities: Lancashire County Council and the borough councils of Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle and Rossendale". However this www.gov.uk/government/publications/lancashire-growth-deal seems to suggest it's substantially funded by Central Government, so, out of complete ignorance, who becomes the employer - the funder or the administrators of the funding? |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Mar 24, 2017 3:09:06 GMT
Going on the website of the now defunct Regenerate Pennine Lancashire it says: "Regenerate is owned by the six Pennine Lancashire local authorities: Lancashire County Council and the borough councils of Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle and Rossendale". However this www.gov.uk/government/publications/lancashire-growth-deal seems to suggest it's substantially funded by Central Government, so, out of complete ignorance, who becomes the employer - the funder or the administrators of the funding? The employer is Growth Lancashire, no question. The point is the law talking about "holds any employment in a company which, in accordance with Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 other than section 73, is under the control of the local authority ". I would assume a company is in control of its administrators. If a company gets 75% of its income from the same customer, it doesn't make that company "under the control" of that customer. Sure it has influence, but it's due to business dynamics, not law. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Mar 24, 2017 8:45:36 GMT
What does this mean? Assuming this is serious, I'm guessing one of the candidates has died. That has been deleted. What did it say? As I understand it, we had a tweet last night stating that the Labour candidate in the Higher Croft by-election was disqualified from standing, this was then followed by Britain Elects tweeting percentages from a result, followed by the assessment that a new election would be needed, which in turn is followed by the original tweet being deleted. It does make me wonder if Blackburn has made a massive mistake here and is trying to cover its tracks. |
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,906
|
Post by Tony Otim on Mar 24, 2017 8:57:45 GMT
Dunster & Timberscombe (West Somerset) result: LDEM: 49.7% (+49.7) CON: 32.9% (-26.7) GRN: 10.9% (-29.6) LAB: 6.6% (+6.6) Greens really do struggle with byelections don't they? Just think how much we'd have won in Leominster by if we were any good 😉. There's probably enough evidence to back up the theory. Not sure either of these two elections do really. Great result for your guys though. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 24, 2017 9:33:36 GMT
I notice one of the directors of Growth Lancashire is "Tony Greaves". Do you know this person, tonygreaves ? Know anything about the status of the company? |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 24, 2017 9:35:10 GMT
Going on the website of the now defunct Regenerate Pennine Lancashire it says: "Regenerate is owned by the six Pennine Lancashire local authorities: Lancashire County Council and the borough councils of Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle and Rossendale". However this www.gov.uk/government/publications/lancashire-growth-deal seems to suggest it's substantially funded by Central Government, so, out of complete ignorance, who becomes the employer - the funder or the administrators of the funding? The employer is Growth Lancashire, no question. The point is the law talking about "holds any employment in a company which, in accordance with Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 other than section 73, is under the control of the local authority ". I would assume a company is in control of its administrators. If a company gets 75% of its income from the same customer, it doesn't make that company "under the control" of that customer. Sure it has influence, but it's due to business dynamics, not law. OK, but in this case Growth Lancashire appears to consist of the six councils mentioned in my original quote plus two Chambers of Commerce, and is a standalone company with independent directors, distributing Central Government money on behalf of those eight stakeholders, can the councils be described as employers? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 24, 2017 9:47:40 GMT
Seems clear Blackburn with Darwen does have a stake in Growth Lancashire, as it nominated deputy leader Phil Riley to be a director. Here is the relevant section of the 1989 Act: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/42/part/VI wonder if the exemption under section 73 would apply? |
|
