Ilkley councillor Anne Hawkesworth quits Bradford Council Conservative group (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

Another example of our councillors being more interested in party politics than running the city.
It's interesting to see Cllr Miller seems to be more interested in protecting the national Tory party than worrying about the concerns of Bradford residents. I suspect that this is the case in all the parties, not just the Tories.

Glen Miller didnt see it coming! My word that's old news!

Are any of us "in the mood" for a laugh???

Fair play to her for sticking to some principles. This is what the government's planning minister has said today....

Nick Boles said the shortage of affordable housing was now the biggest threat to social justice in the UK and insisted greenfield sites had to be developed to tackle the problem. He claimed that England was not "massively overdeveloped".

"We need to build more, not all of it can be satisfied by empty homes and 'brownfield' sites, so we will need to build quite a lot on currently undeveloped land. England is not massively overdeveloped," he told the Daily Telegraph.

Not massively overdeveloped??? We don't have enough jobs, public services or infrastructure now. I fail to see how encouraging overpopulation is going to help. Bulldozing more fields doesn't sound like a Conservative thing to do.

If I can't be centre forward I'm taking my ball home.....stuff the game!

Wasn't Anne Hawkesworth one of those responsible for the completely unfit for purpose, style-over-function, bus 'shelter' on Hall Ings?

From the T&A 21 Oct 2010:
"Transport chief and senior councillor criticise features of new landmark"

Councillor Anne Hawkesworth:
“There’s no protection whatsoever from wind and the roof structure is so high up that anyone under the shelter will not have any real protection from any rain or snow which is accompanied by wind.”

It was opened in July as part of the £24.4 million City Park project.

Councillor Dave Green, the Council’s executive member for regeneration, said: “The bus shelter was approved by the Conservative planning portfolio holder, Anne Hawkesworth. No changes to the bus shelter have been made since.

'nuff said.

angry bradfordian wrote:
Fair play to her for sticking to some principles. This is what the government's planning minister has said today.... Nick Boles said the shortage of affordable housing was now the biggest threat to social justice in the UK and insisted greenfield sites had to be developed to tackle the problem. He claimed that England was not "massively overdeveloped". "We need to build more, not all of it can be satisfied by empty homes and 'brownfield' sites, so we will need to build quite a lot on currently undeveloped land. England is not massively overdeveloped," he told the Daily Telegraph. Not massively overdeveloped??? We don't have enough jobs, public services or infrastructure now. I fail to see how encouraging overpopulation is going to help. Bulldozing more fields doesn't sound like a Conservative thing to do.

Perhaps Nick Boles should read things like this? http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
1306213/England-popu
lated-country-EU.htm
l

We're overpopulated and need to do something about that rather than just concreting over anything that's green. I thought that policy was just John Prescotts salad aversion in the last government.

BD16 wrote:

angry bradfordian wrote:
Fair play to her for sticking to some principles. This is what the government's planning minister has said today.... Nick Boles said the shortage of affordable housing was now the biggest threat to social justice in the UK and insisted greenfield sites had to be developed to tackle the problem. He claimed that England was not "massively overdeveloped". "We need to build more, not all of it can be satisfied by empty homes and 'brownfield' sites, so we will need to build quite a lot on currently undeveloped land. England is not massively overdeveloped," he told the Daily Telegraph. Not massively overdeveloped??? We don't have enough jobs, public services or infrastructure now. I fail to see how encouraging overpopulation is going to help. Bulldozing more fields doesn't sound like a Conservative thing to do.

Perhaps Nick Boles should read things like this? http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

1306213/England-popu

lated-country-EU.htm

l

We're overpopulated and need to do something about that rather than just concreting over anything that's green. I thought that policy was just John Prescotts salad aversion in the last government.

Steps are being taken to reduce the population. Between jan and nov 2011 a 10,600 reduction was achieved by ATOS alone and as a result of ongoing welfare reforms domicide levels look set to increase steadily year on year for the forseeable future.

Who gives a sh!t about these useless politicians

Sack the lot of em...better still vote em out and do em all for treason

As for affordable housing... shut the gate stop folk from coming into this country.
Why cant we be like other countries!! . Only if you have the means to support yourself are you allowed in, AND You must Have somewhere to live and a Job to go to Only THEN can you live here..

As for ATOS... they are reducing the population this way ..Disgusting http://politicalscra
pbook.net/2012/11/di
sabled-man-dies-afte
r-atos-stops-benefit
s-chris-grayling/

As an expression of the true spirit of all being in it together MP's call for a 32% salary increase. The time for revolution is at hand.
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-politics-20
978487

RollandSmoke wrote:
As an expression of the true spirit of all being in it together MP's call for a 32% salary increase. The time for revolution is at hand.
http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-politics-20

978487

The haven't demanded a 32% pay rise, they said in a survey that they think they are worth more.
I don't see why that's any different to your numerous comments suggesting you should be paid more benefits.

If we want some effective politicians rather than muppets we've got like Sutcliffe, Davies & Galloway we're not going to get them by paying talented people less than they would in other jobs.

angry bradfordian wrote:

RollandSmoke wrote:
As an expression of the true spirit of all being in it together MP's call for a 32% salary increase. The time for revolution is at hand.
http://www.bbc.co.uk


/news/uk-politics-20


978487

The haven't demanded a 32% pay rise, they said in a survey that they think they are worth more.
I don't see why that's any different to your numerous comments suggesting you should be paid more benefits.

If we want some effective politicians rather than muppets we've got like Sutcliffe, Davies & Galloway we're not going to get them by paying talented people less than they would in other jobs.

If that were indeed their only earnings I would agree that they may have a point. Remind me why Philip Davies gets paid by the gambling industry again? Then there's all the favours from the lobby groups. If I thought paying them more would stop the backhanders I'd consider it. When Iain Duncan Smith spends £39 on one breakfast then claimed it back on taxpayers expenses is it money well spent when he thinks £71 JSA is more than enough to see someone through the week?

RollandSmoke wrote:

angry bradfordian wrote:

RollandSmoke wrote: As an expression of the true spirit of all being in it together MP's call for a 32% salary increase. The time for revolution is at hand. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-politics-20 978487

The haven't demanded a 32% pay rise, they said in a survey that they think they are worth more. I don't see why that's any different to your numerous comments suggesting you should be paid more benefits. If we want some effective politicians rather than muppets we've got like Sutcliffe, Davies & Galloway we're not going to get them by paying talented people less than they would in other jobs.

If that were indeed their only earnings I would agree that they may have a point. Remind me why Philip Davies gets paid by the gambling industry again? Then there's all the favours from the lobby groups. If I thought paying them more would stop the backhanders I'd consider it. When Iain Duncan Smith spends £39 on one breakfast then claimed it back on taxpayers expenses is it money well spent when he thinks £71 JSA is more than enough to see someone through the week?

Corrupt the lot of them

Heres Sutcliffe taking a 5 man party on all expenses paid trip to Qutar to look at the world famous Qutar sports dome and village.

Whilst the Bulls creditors get nothing.

Whilst care homes are scheduled for closure as they have been starved of investment (3)heres this goon looking at something that cost £1000 million pounds as a fairy dream.

Could not even secure any funding for the Odsal Sports Village when he was Minister For Sport and labour were bankrolling the country to bankruptcy.

dreamer.

Stay in the bookies in Bingley more often Gerry.

One day you may back the right nag and all your dreams may come true

Until then get back in Parliament and do your job and stop this lunacy.

senilty cannot be far from him now.

Out to grass with the other old nags that blight Holmewood would be his best pasture and pastime

Lunatic

RollandSmoke wrote:

angry bradfordian wrote:

RollandSmoke wrote:
As an expression of the true spirit of all being in it together MP's call for a 32% salary increase. The time for revolution is at hand.
http://www.bbc.co.uk



/news/uk-politics-20



978487

The haven't demanded a 32% pay rise, they said in a survey that they think they are worth more.
I don't see why that's any different to your numerous comments suggesting you should be paid more benefits.

If we want some effective politicians rather than muppets we've got like Sutcliffe, Davies & Galloway we're not going to get them by paying talented people less than they would in other jobs.

If that were indeed their only earnings I would agree that they may have a point. Remind me why Philip Davies gets paid by the gambling industry again? Then there's all the favours from the lobby groups. If I thought paying them more would stop the backhanders I'd consider it. When Iain Duncan Smith spends £39 on one breakfast then claimed it back on taxpayers expenses is it money well spent when he thinks £71 JSA is more than enough to see someone through the week?

You have the same opportunities as them to go out and make money, the fact that you choose to stay unemployed means you can hardly complain.

Albion. wrote:

RollandSmoke wrote:

angry bradfordian wrote:

RollandSmoke wrote:
As an expression of the true spirit of all being in it together MP's call for a 32% salary increase. The time for revolution is at hand.
http://www.bbc.co.uk




/news/uk-politics-20




978487

The haven't demanded a 32% pay rise, they said in a survey that they think they are worth more.
I don't see why that's any different to your numerous comments suggesting you should be paid more benefits.

If we want some effective politicians rather than muppets we've got like Sutcliffe, Davies & Galloway we're not going to get them by paying talented people less than they would in other jobs.

If that were indeed their only earnings I would agree that they may have a point. Remind me why Philip Davies gets paid by the gambling industry again? Then there's all the favours from the lobby groups. If I thought paying them more would stop the backhanders I'd consider it. When Iain Duncan Smith spends £39 on one breakfast then claimed it back on taxpayers expenses is it money well spent when he thinks £71 JSA is more than enough to see someone through the week?

You have the same opportunities as them to go out and make money, the fact that you choose to stay unemployed means you can hardly complain.

I don't think you're qualified to make that assessment which is why they pay ATOS £100m a year to do the job and have done for some time. In my numerous encounters with them in the past their assessment was that I should continue to qualify for benefits however I fear that nowerdays the motivation for these assessments has become political posturing and sending messages to the electorate rather than to understand the claimants medical need. Have a look at the governments figures for fraud amongst incapacity benefit claimants and you may gauge how insulting I find your constant insinuations.

RollandSmoke wrote:

Albion. wrote:

RollandSmoke wrote:

angry bradfordian wrote:

RollandSmoke wrote:
As an expression of the true spirit of all being in it together MP's call for a 32% salary increase. The time for revolution is at hand.
http://www.bbc.co.uk





/news/uk-politics-20





978487

The haven't demanded a 32% pay rise, they said in a survey that they think they are worth more.
I don't see why that's any different to your numerous comments suggesting you should be paid more benefits.

If we want some effective politicians rather than muppets we've got like Sutcliffe, Davies & Galloway we're not going to get them by paying talented people less than they would in other jobs.

If that were indeed their only earnings I would agree that they may have a point. Remind me why Philip Davies gets paid by the gambling industry again? Then there's all the favours from the lobby groups. If I thought paying them more would stop the backhanders I'd consider it. When Iain Duncan Smith spends £39 on one breakfast then claimed it back on taxpayers expenses is it money well spent when he thinks £71 JSA is more than enough to see someone through the week?

You have the same opportunities as them to go out and make money, the fact that you choose to stay unemployed means you can hardly complain.

I don't think you're qualified to make that assessment which is why they pay ATOS £100m a year to do the job and have done for some time. In my numerous encounters with them in the past their assessment was that I should continue to qualify for benefits however I fear that nowerdays the motivation for these assessments has become political posturing and sending messages to the electorate rather than to understand the claimants medical need. Have a look at the governments figures for fraud amongst incapacity benefit claimants and you may gauge how insulting I find your constant insinuations.

"insinuations" Being facts.
ATOS unfortunately are not beyond being hoodwinked.

There is no big loss here Hawksworth was useless. The Tories are well rid of this right wing idiot who's having a tant because she wants to play with the big boys. This is a woman who went running to radio Leeds condemning the Labour Party for spending tax payers money for a Christmas Party which she had taken advantage of on previous years. She's a joke! This sounds to me like Cllr Glen Miller is trying to clean house and Ms Hawksworth has something to hide so she jumps ship before shes pushed. Fair well to bad rubbish that's what I say she's no great loss.

Doc savage wrote:
There is no big loss here Hawksworth was useless. The Tories are well rid of this right wing idiot who's having a tant because she wants to play with the big boys. This is a woman who went running to radio Leeds condemning the Labour Party for spending tax payers money for a Christmas Party which she had taken advantage of on previous years. She's a joke! This sounds to me like Cllr Glen Miller is trying to clean house and Ms Hawksworth has something to hide so she jumps ship before shes pushed. Fair well to bad rubbish that's what I say she's no great loss.

According to the BBC News Bradford page 12 Nov 2010,

Figures show the authority spent a total of £32,380 in the last financial year on refreshments, with £3,568 of that accounting for the Christmas dinner.

At the time the council was a Conservative administration.

Councillor Anne Hawkesworth, leader of the council's Tory group, said: "It was a normal order that had gone in as far as I can remember, I don't know the details of how it happened but however it happened I have come to the point where I think council teas are a thing of the past."

With that and the 'no-shelter' bus shelter folly she presided over, she doesn't seem to know much about anything she's responsible for, does she?

Cllr Hawksworths problem is she thinks she did a good job when she was leader, she lives in cloud cookoo land. She was instromental in closing liberies and back peddled on other big issues not to mention presiding over the odeon fiasco. In a word she is useless as a councillor ilkley voters should vote her out in 4 years. My passing shot to this less than idiotic individual is she claims to be supporting the national Conservative party while condemning thier housing policy and Cllr Glen Millers leadership. It is clear what's going on here it's self interest all the way, she can't be leader so she's not playing, I bet when she was leader she whipped more Tories into line or made them go for hair cuts when she knew who was going to vote against her will. Now she crys foul when her boss uses the whips. Cllr Hawksworth is a hypocrite pure and simple. The Tories are well shut of her and her antics and the sooner ilkley voters realise just how useless she is the better. Oh and by the way this is a person who didn't even use the correct Conservative Party posters. I saw them in ilkley they were the old 80s style logo posters. As I said useless.