Lichfield councillor defends his decision to accept raise in allowances

Councillor John Walker

Councillor John Walker

A councillor has defended his decision to accept an annual increase in his allowances – despite being the only member of Lichfield District Council to do so.

Cllr John Walker (Independent, Curborough) has taken up the 4.6per cent increase, according to a Lichfield District Council spokesperson.

Although councillors are entitled to the increase, at their annual meeting it was agreed that each member of the council would be given a choice of whether they accepted the raise in allowances or not.

And it has now been confirmed that all have opted to reject the rise – except Cllr Walker.

Richard King, Strategic Director of Democratic, Development and Legal Services for Lichfield District Council, said:

“At this year’s annual council meeting, councillors accepted the recommendation of the Independent Remuneration Panel for a 4.6 per cent increase in their allowances. It was also agreed that each councillor should be given the choice whether or not to accept their personal increase.

“But due to the current state of the economy, it was recommended they should not consider doing so. Councillor John Walker later decided to accept his personal increase.”

But Cllr Walker believes the increase is deserved because of the good work that he is involved with in the local community.

He explained:

“We should take up the increase if we’re doing a good job – and I work hard at what I do. People can ask some of the 70-odd people I’ve helped rehome about that.

“And when people talk about value for money I’m one of the lowest paid councillors in Lichfield.”

Lichfield District Council’s records show that Cllr Walker claimed £3,124.75 in the 2008/09 period.

Cllr Walker added that his commitment to local causes meant his constituents would not begrudge him the raise. He explained:

“I’ve always prided myself on campaigning on local issues that affect local people. I’ve spoken recently about the lack of allotments and the lack of a swimming pool in North Lichfield. People know that if they come to see me then their issues will be dealt with and there are plenty of people I have helped who will confirm that.

“And they know I won’t just be like some of the other councillors who are nothing more than clones of each other and are appearing in photos rather than dealing with the problems local people are facing.”

Advertisements
Founder of LichfieldLive and editor of the site.

38 Comments

  1. Will Chapman

    1st October, 2009 at 9:32 am

    I’m not convinced by your arguments Councillor Walker. Especially if part of your justification is based on knocking the performance of your colleagues. Your statement ‘we should take up the increase if we are doing a good job’ implies that the rest of your colleagues (who won’t taking the increase) are not doing a good job. I would like to be around when you have to justify that slur to them!

    There are thousands of people around the country that are making a contribution to a better society for all without the support of expenses/allowances. You are out of touch with

  2. whats right

    1st October, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    I think Cllr Walker should have his pay rise as he works very hard helping local people, by the time he pays for his telephone and run his car and also he has to pay tax on it , it does not leave him with alot left, he works hard so he should get it.

  3. whole truth

    1st October, 2009 at 12:16 pm

    When I needed help with my flat Cllr John Walker helped me out no one else would take up the issue until I saw the Cllr and after that it was dealt with very quickly.

  4. 66usual

    1st October, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    I begrudge the rise.
    He always makes negative comments about my neighbourhood, and that does the people no good. He has no influence in Council. He is one of the ‘lowest paid’ councillors because he fails to work with other elected members effectively and can’t get a seat on any committee. He is only an independent because no one party will accept him as a member.

    He should resign

  5. Classcrisis

    1st October, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    The “state of the economy” seems to have had no effect on other money wasting projects, at county level it was seen as a good use of £7000 to have a new logo designed.

    The council blew £168,000 on block paving outside the Garrick, £26,000 of that was section 109 money. How much have they blown on the consultants for the “on track” Friars Gate development which should have been finished now but has not been started?

    Walker may well be seen to be out of step taking this rise but it’s minuscule in relation to the money wasted by those who are seeking to put themselves on the moral high ground by not taking their rise. A press release from the council over John Walker claiming his allowance rise and pointing out that other councilors haven’t taken theirs is a good illustration of the petty point scoring nature of local politics in this city. This rise amounts to less than £150 in a year.

  6. Unconcerned Citizen

    1st October, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    Cllr Walkers expensese are close enough to be at the bottom of the league table (give or take a few hundred quid).

    As classcrisis have said – this issue is being used in a tittle tattle point scoring manner.
    David Smith claims 21,000. Cllr Walker just 3124

    More importantly – Richard King has confirmed this situation, but who brought it to public attention and why?
    Richard Kings not even a councillr (although in an authoritive but unelected position).
    Perhaps he should do his job – Strategic Director of Democratic, Development and Legal Services for Lichfield District Council – rather than joining the pack and attacking an officially elected councillor (who doesn’t toe the majority conservative party line).

  7. Steve

    1st October, 2009 at 6:31 pm

    the money is not the point, its that Cllr Walker thinks he is special and more deserving of the rise. The allowance is tiny, relatively speaking.
    Mr King would probably have been responding to a press request, and he would have provided a reply because he in not in a political position and simply provided the facts.

    Also, anyone else think that ‘whats right’ and ‘whole truth’ are probably the erstwhile Cllr Walker himself?

  8. Will Chapman

    1st October, 2009 at 6:54 pm

    I agree. The money isn’t the point. Just like most MPs they miss the point about their expenses – most of them didn’t do anything illegal, but few actually understand why the general public upset.

    Cllr Walker has the same attitude – he just doesn’t get it. But then neither do all those Directors of big banks who are still awarding themselves/their senior execs stratospheric bonus and wage deals.

  9. Unconcerned Citizen

    1st October, 2009 at 6:54 pm

    Steve – interesting what you have read between the lines – that Mr Walker thinks he is more deserving than the others.

    How about what i have read between the lines….

    Considering inflation, Councillors whom refused the rise are admitting that they have spent more than they needed to in previous years.
    Vis a Vis
    The councillors that have attempted to take the moral high ground could have perhaps spent less money in the past?

  10. Unconcerned Citizen

    1st October, 2009 at 7:22 pm

    Will Chapman – we seem to have posted at the same time…

    The money is the point. The public is annoyed by recent MP expenses – perhaps this is the real reason councillors were advised not to take this expenses increase rather than the recession being the cause.
    More to the point, who made this recomendation?

    MPs and Councillors do need expenses to carry out thier duties.
    An efficent honest MP or Councillor would need an increase at the rate of inflation to thier expenses – or would perhaps have to reduce thier services.

    So the Councillors that refused the increase were either spending more than they needed to, or are intending to reduce thier services.

    In a recession, councillors and MPs are likely to find themselves busier dealing with the increased number of problems caused by a failed economy.

  11. Will Chapman

    1st October, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    Of course you are correct the money is the point. What I should have said was that it wasn’t the amount of money that is the issue.

    Reacting to the difficult economic conditions, all Lichfield DC Councillors other than Cllr Walker have decided not to take a recommended increase in expenses. Cllr Walker was the exception and his justification was, quote, ‘We should take up the increase if we’re doing a good job’.

    To me that is not a justification – that is suggesting that all the other cllrs weren’t doing a good job which is tantamount to an insult.

    The real point is that we are in a recession and we all need to cut back without reducing our effectiveness.

    Cheers

  12. Unconcerned Citizen

    1st October, 2009 at 8:41 pm

    I’d agree that if money can be saved – that is no bad thing in a recession.

    But…
    As a Group, all of the councillors accepted the Independant Renumeration Panels 4.6% rise.
    As individuals – when put on the spot – only one councillor accepted the rise.

    It does seem rather farcical doesn’t it?

    Its blatently obvious many were ‘toe-ing the party line’

    All councillors have spent widely varying amounts of money – some probably should cut out any perks or liberties and perhaps tighten thier belts.
    Some councillors should probably spend more rather than worrying about having to face public scrutiny of thier allowances.

    There is about 50 councillors for lichfield.
    Over 40 conservatives, 5 labour, and 6 libdems.
    Oh and 1 independant (Cllr John Walker).

    The only guy who isn’t involved in party politics has got the guts to increase his very bottom rung allowances.

    I think it only fair to criticise him if he is deemed to be wasting money or for his politics- rather than for not toe-ing the party line.

    Cheers

  13. The All Seeing Pie

    1st October, 2009 at 8:48 pm

    Ah right, so the true class crisis colours show at long last.
    Miniscule amount in comparison or not, if you are so against the money being wasted by the council then you should be applauding the outing of this councillor and his blatant greed. If you want to tackle the haemmoraghing of money from the council then it needs to be across the board, be it major wastage or lesser wastage.

    Plenty of people would agree that money is being wasted elsewhere but as charity begins at home so does belt tightening.
    Is it not about time you lot admitted that you are more anti traditional political parties rather than hiding behind this we are fighting for the common man charade?

  14. Unconcerned Citizen

    1st October, 2009 at 9:38 pm

    Cllr Walkers Decision seems to be based upon common sense – his running costs will go up due to inflation.
    Why would he be able to save money if he is already providing value for money?

    How will the other councillors cut back to achieve this saving? unless they have been wasting money?

    I’d rather have an effective councillor rather than one concentrating on saving 300 quid.

    Spending a little money (such as buying a blackberry) could actually make them more effective – thus saving money elsewhere.

    Having an allowance freeze due to the MPs expenses charade and perhaps securing future votes from an unalytical public seems like a Dumb decision.

    However – im quite certain that a large number of councillors could cut back and save money – this is merely indicative of thier previous wastage rather than truely being more effective.

    The councillors that can cut back, should cut back – not all of them have been wastful and perhaps Cllr Walker should not be tarred with the same brush.

  15. Phil

    2nd October, 2009 at 11:45 am

    For those talking about the pay rise as aligned with inflation, don’t forget that inflation is currently at 1.6% far below the pay rise of 4.6%.

  16. Classcrisis

    2nd October, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    That’s an interesting take on us All seeing pie. Does it hold up though?

    We have never made any secret of the fact that we find mainstream politics to be one step removed the needs of ordinary people and this story illustrates it perfectly.

    The councilors decision to not take their allowance rise is nothing more than gesture politics, that Walker has decided to take the rise, in his case £143 is a complete non issue. There are no material consequences to his actions, no services are under threat due to his decision. This is nothing but school boy point scoring politics that has no impact on the issues affecting the lives of the people in Walkers ward. It isn’t really politics at all.

    Read the statement in this article from Mr King “At this year’s annual council meeting, councillors accepted the recommendation of the Independent Remuneration Panel for a 4.6 per cent increase in their allowances. It was also agreed that each councillor should be given the choice whether or not to accept their personal increase.” What does this tell us?

    They could simply have voted to reject the rise which would have bound all councilors. Instead they accepted it and then crafted a piece of meaningless spin ” we haven’t taken our rise, aren’t we altruistic”.

    See it for what it is and see this attack on Walker for what it is. A non issue and another failure of the mainstream political parties to tackle a man on genuinely political issues.

  17. Unconcerned Citizen

    2nd October, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    Phil – fair point there.

    The sort of items/services/materials that a councillor needs will (surely?) have gone up by the 4.6% as calculated by the Independant Renumeration Panel.
    Its still inflation – just not identical to the overall official inflation value.

    Or of course the Independant Renumeration Panel goog be yet more political spin.
    Its turning into a pantomime.

    Look out ! John Walkers behind you ! ;)

  18. BrownhillsBob

    2nd October, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    Classcrisis – I’ve held my tongue for a bit, but this is really beginning to annoy me.

    You keep banging on about class, how hard done to the man in the street is, Tooting Popular Front, we’re not racist, we just support a man who is etc. etc. so far, so Dave Spart.

    Why do you think that I, as a card-carrying member of the working class, need you to speak up for me?

    Who, exactly, died and made you the voice of Lichfield’s hard pressed underclass? Why do you think that I, as a member of said class, am unable to benefit from things like the Garrick? Do you consider me, by virtue of my social standing, to be an ill educated buffoon – that’s certainly the impression you give and I find it insulting and patronising in the extreme?

    The inimitable Cllr. Walker seems to have no problem opening his own mouth, I don’t think he needs you to defend him. I’m sure that if he feels the need to defend himself, he’ll issue some missive or other, or even participate here.

    Why have you seen fit to ape the theme of The Lichfield Blog for your own site? You’ve had your five minutes of notoriety, are you unable to accept the coexistence of another site for Lichfield?

    I, and many others I’m sure, would have a damn sight more respect for you if you did your own thing, instead of grabbing on the coat-tails of any passing bandwagon. And do please stop insulting the intelligence of the working class – we may be thick as a bricks but we’re sharp as a tack, and can spot the whiff of condescension from 300 yards.

    You’ve got some fine points but you’re dulling them with your abrasive, grinding technique.

    Bob

  19. Steve

    2nd October, 2009 at 9:29 pm

    Well said Mr Bob.
    I did think that Mr Crisis made some fair points (although I don’t like his use of the word ‘We’, thought he might be Royal, but I am easily confused, just being a North Lichfield simpleton)

    The thing is, about this alleged ‘attack’ on Councillor Walker, it is of his own making. For a few quid, he’s walked into a potential $h!t storm. Why? Did he do it deliberately to make some sort of point? If so, what point?
    Or did he just think he’d have the cash because he see the Council lark as gravy train? He’s no influence inside Council, and he was always adept at getting his voice heard through the Press before he was elected, so why did he bother?

    Mr Crisis, are you going to stand for election? You ought to now. If you don’t you are just full of steam, you have no mandate, and you will waste your fine articulacy and become another pub bore (except, on the internet, everyone can hear you whinge)

    Final point, I’m not sure that Mr Crisis is actually defending Cllr Walker, but, if I’m right, just things that the way mainstream politics is rubbish, Walker is outside of it for whatever reason, and the system will do him down, because thats simply what it does to defend its own interests….

  20. Steve

    2nd October, 2009 at 9:31 pm

    its late, I’m tired, read “things” for “thinks”, above please, but you’d worked that out already, sorry….

  21. Davo

    2nd October, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    Bob, i can’t see anywhere where classcrisis has defended Cllr Walker, they’ve merely pointed out that in the great scheme of things the council has wasted far more money on inappropriate ventures than his rise and that the position of those councillors who haven’t taken the rise is a disengenuous one. Neither has classcrisis claimed to speak on behalf on Lichfield’s workig class, their website says it’s a place for lichfield’s working class to debate, essentially it appears to be a website for discussing issues relating to class and working class interests, you can join in, as can i or anyone else, you seem to think it’s some sort of vanguard.

  22. BrownhillsBob

    2nd October, 2009 at 9:48 pm

    Davo

    The Classcrisis website is the sound of one hand clapping. Classcrisis has some valid points, but the continued ‘I’m not defending this man I’m just, um, making excuses for him’ stance is getting a bit weary.

    Cllr Walker likes to court controversy and is perfectly able to defend himself. Hell, he could even do it under his real name if he develops the balls. I suspect he doesn’t care what attention he garners as long as his face remains in the public eye.

    I reiterate my view that Classcrisis is nothing more than a lone wolf howling at the moon, assuming a pack of bigger but more stupid dogs lurks behind him. He’s mistaken, he’s largely alone, and just barking.

    Bob

  23. Classcrisis

    2nd October, 2009 at 10:19 pm

    Interesting attack Bob, or should we say interesting straw man you’ve built there and so skilfully slain. Shame it bears no relation to anything we’ve actually said. That’s it on that. If you want to actually develop the argument then choose an appropriate place to do it, this isn’t a forum it’s blog that allows comments on articles.

    With that in mind lets drag this back on topic. Steve you’re about right. We aren’t defending Walker, we’re criticising the apolitical nature of the attacks against him. As for us putting up a candidate it is possible and even likely.

    BTW The we relates to our posts being on behalf of class crisis a group, or pack of mad dogs depending on your view.

  24. BrownhillsBob

    3rd October, 2009 at 1:03 am

    Classcrisis

    That wasn’t an attack, it was a series of observations. I’d be grateful if you could clarify why you seem intent to continue this charade of being the voice of the working class in Lichfield. As far as I can see, most of the things you rant about aren’t specific to Lichfield, and are equally prevalent in Brownhills; dearth of jobs, lack of social housing and so forth.

    Dressing it all up under a patina of class rivalry is both naive and erroneous.

    When you and your friends (odd that you’ve all got the same writing style, just like Mr. Walkers’ admirers up top there) wipe the board at the next election, I’ll start taking you seriously. Until then, you’ll just be some lone ranter with a phobia of anything theatrical.

    I’d be gratified if you’d address some of the points I raised, particularly the one about your plagiarism of the look and feel of The Lichfield Blog, which is not only ungentlemanly, it marks you out as being devoid of original thought.

    Bob

  25. Classcrisis

    3rd October, 2009 at 3:34 am

    Bob, start a thread on our forum, write a post on your own blog or ask the Lichfield blog to post here saying “yes, have the conversation here” and we’ll have it.

    We can’t have it like this though, invading a space and disrupting it with an off topic argument isn’t on.

  26. Unconcerned Citizen

    3rd October, 2009 at 9:03 am

    To put things back on topic…
    The allowances are the finances for the mechanism which we consult will our councillors and indeed local politics.
    Some (most) councillors are willing to effectivly reduce the funding which allows our councillors to connect with us.

    Enough said really?

    Classcrisis may seem annoying – but the truth often is rather inconvenient isn’t it?

    This article makes no mention of previous attacks recently upon cllr walker by other councillors.
    The article is therefore biased to make Cllr Walker look bad.

    It seems too me classcrisis tend to just point out nothing other than the hard facts and figures which the council might wish were brushed under the table.

    ‘plagiarism of the look and feel of The Lichfield Blog’ ? isn’t it just a bog standard wordpress template?
    Wordpress is open source – a movement that is generally concerned about truth and access to media.
    The means of media production are in everybodys hands now.

    Get used to the truth.

  27. BrownhillsBob

    3rd October, 2009 at 11:29 am

    Classcrisis

    On the contrary, I believe this is the ideal place to discuss your plagiarism of this very website. That you fail to answer a single point, unless it’s in a place where you can conceal your sockpuppetry, speaks volumes.

    Combined with your previous attacks on the Lichfield Blog here – including accusing them of being the voice of the council and so forth – one can only assume your reticence is because you know you’ve got no justification whatsoever.

    I can’t help thinking that if the ‘we’ you so magnanimously bang on about was any more than imaginary, you’d have a few more supporters here than just the usual Lichfield blowhards.

    I have no intention of coming over to your forum. I prefer my food warm, thanks.

    Bob

  28. Classcrisis

    3rd October, 2009 at 12:16 pm

    You may well believe this is the appropriate place Bob but it isn’t yours is it? Go and write a post on your own blog you’ll get an in depth response or Lichfieldblog can post here and confirm their willingness for this to be about class crisis and you’ll get the response here.

    Just to be clear nothing has been posted here by class crisis on any article that has not been about that article.

  29. BrownhillsBob

    3rd October, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    Classcrisis

    It’s quite funny that you’re so suddenly concerned about protecting the content of The Lichfield Blog. I know that you’re desperate for the ‘moderators’ to come to your assistance, and I’m sure they would, except you plagiarised the look and feel of their site. Understandably, I can see this would make them less than charitable to you.

    You have consistently used the comments section of this site to expound your views – some interesting, some predictable, some, frankly, bizarre. I’m responding to you, and questioning why you continue to read a website that clearly irritates you so much.

    Since you’re almost as much of a fixture in these parts as pigeon droppings on Captain Smiths statue, it’s timely and fitting that someone should come along with a scraper and hose.

    You’re welcome to comment on my blog. You are quite often prescient, but need to learn that it’s better to be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and prove it.

    Why did you copy the theme of The Lichfield Blog, anyway? It looks crap without that sunset and some decent content.

    Bob

  30. Classcrisis

    3rd October, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    I’m can post links after this Bob if needs be which will mean the comment will have to wait for moderation. The links are all for sites using this theme. A theme that is not the property of Lichfieldblog and which Lichfieldblog have no claim on whatsoever- none. I’m sorry if you are labouring under the illusion that we have stolen original work, we have in fact stolen nothing.

    If you want to prise a direct criticism of the Lichfieldblog from me it is that they have not modified the theme they use at all, it’s straight out of the box, even retaining the original favicon. This cannot be said of CC or indeed any of the blogs I can link too straight from a google search, there’s a multitude of sites using this theme.

    I’m Rob btw, all the comments on here have been from me except for the comments on the canal at Fradley – That was Andy, he has been involved in the waterways for more than a decade.

    There is no line from us that is hostile to the Lichfieldblog, I don’t find it remotely irritating but there is a thread on our forum, one which LB have posted on that questions were raised and answered. The hostility is entirely in your imagination Bob.

  31. Classcrisis

    3rd October, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    As the admin here have deleted some spam comments but left these intact we can take it as read that this is an acceptable line for the comments to take. On that basis Bob my old mate I’ll answer the rest of your points, such as they are.

    “You keep banging on about class, how hard done to the man in the street is, Tooting Popular Front, we’re not racist, we just support a man who is etc. etc. so far, so Dave Spart”

    Have we supported Walker? Where? I would argue we have not, we have simply pointed the pathetic nature of the attacks on the man that are devoid of any political content.

    The one opportunity he presented for a genuine deconstruction of his views -nominating Alex Sproule as a BNP candidate- was handled appallingly by both the political establishment in the city and by the media. He was allowed to paint himself as the reasonable person by signing the proposal to allow a democratic vote to take place. He let the people choose. Pathetic. No expansion of the man’s other views, no in depth interview just a quote from some councillors that they are united in their distaste for the BNP – Great, since when did their tastes matter a damn? The issue could have been explored, there could have been some genuine discourse about why a BNP candidate was standing and why Walker seemed to be supportive. There wasn’t, there were meaningless sound bites. Play the ball not the man. As long as the media and politicos carry on like this and Walker keeps on raising issues like allotments, swimming pool access etc. he has the ground that people want and the siege mentality this point scoring crap promotes serves to keep him put. Ask yourself why this is, why are there no attacks on the issues that the man supports and the angle he comes at them from?

    “Who, exactly, died and made you the voice of Lichfield’s hard pressed underclass? Why do you think that I, as a member of said class, am unable to benefit from things like the Garrick? Do you consider me, by virtue of my social standing, to be an ill educated buffoon – that’s certainly the impression you give and I find it insulting and patronising in the extreme?”

    It’s the impression you’d like to paint Bob, try to be honest. We are a group of working class people from Lichfield talking for ourselves. We are not on the outside looking in like some Victorian missionaries slating the working class for being consumed by booze and betting slips. Have we told you that you can’t benefit from the Garrick or have we argued that the Garrick is aimed at the middle classes whereas the facilities it replaced were more inclusive? Perhaps you have led a life where you have been spoken down to a lot and this has made you defensive or like I said before, you’re just trying to paint a rather dishonest picture. You tell me Bob.

    I think that answers everything you raised Bob. Perhaps you might like to heed the warning contained in those words of Oscar Wilde you used.

  32. Steve

    3rd October, 2009 at 8:43 pm

    I’m beginning to like this guy. I thought that Round 1 definitely went to Bob, but thought his right hook in the second was going to lead to a knockout, so fair play to Mr Crisis for getting up and giving it some more!

    Especially if he is calling for better, more thought out attacks on Mr Walker!!!

    Bob, you’ve played a blinder getting Mr Crisis to be clearer on his point and purpose. Do we call a draw?

  33. Classcrisis

    4th October, 2009 at 1:24 pm

    http://www.lichfielddc.gov.uk/site/custom_scripts/electiondetail.php?ward=72&category=2
    That link is for the count of votes in the election that returned Walker and various other councilors. We know well and good Walker compared the Dimbles to Beirut, it’s been well publicised but what about Norma Bacon? She was on central news, also in the aftermath of the Michael Eccles murder saying completely the opposite – The Dimbles is a good area and no one could have predicted something like this would happen.

    One of them was exaggerating for the sake of attention the other has a house for sale by Dimbles shops. Anything made of that? No.

    Of the list of candidates and returned councilors on that list how many can we say of “yes, I know exactly what that person stands for”? They’re largely anonymous they might well have turned down their allowance rise but what else have they done?

    Have they raised the issue of lack of social housing? One has although he made it into an attack on drug users and immigrants. Have any of them apart from Walker made a fuss about giving public access to the Netherstowe School pool? Not that I know of. Have any of them pointed out the 6 year waiting list for allotments in the area, only Walker as far as I know.

    If they want to beat him they should beat him at politics. Be seen to be behind the issues that are important to local people and criticsing him when he clouds issues with unconnected rubbish that’s part of his nationalist agenda.

    The fault for Walker lies with the faceless party drones that were put up to contest the seat.

  34. Class Crisis

    6th October, 2009 at 5:36 pm

    This turned out to be disappointing after LB applauded Bob on twitter for his ‘observations’ I thought our response might actually get him to develop some of his ideas into a coherent argument either about us or Walker. No such luck, perhaps he’s busy doing other things and his lack of a reply is a dismissal of us. Who knows. eh?

  35. BrownhillsBob

    6th October, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    As ever, you overestimate your importance. Since it took several attempts to get you to make any kind of meaningful reply, I merely got bored and engaged in life(tm) instead. I recommend you try it, too.

    I don’t have an ‘argument’ about Mr. Walker. There’s no need to posses an argument; his continued bad behaviour, headline grabbing publicity stunts and rent-a-quote rants demonstrate him to be nothing more than an immature, attention seeking self-publiscist who will be soon forgotten when he doesn’t win at the next election. We’ve been this way before, it’s not original, not big, and not clever.

    Neither is pretending to be two of your constituents on a public forum, come to that.

    I take much the same attitude to you; your modus operandi seems to be the support of anything you perceive to be the underdog, and then attempt to intellectualise it beyond credibility. You like your attention, too – of all the WordPress themes in the world (and there are hundreds), it was a real coincidence that you chose the same one as the Lichfield Blog. It really narks you that they’re doing a whole bunch better, because they’re largely impartial, with only a minor Fabricant fetish.

    In conclusion, I haven’t been talked down to much in my life, It’s not a tendency I tend to indulge in others; I find intellectual conceit is one thing that tends to get pretty short shrift amongst the horny-handed working class. You may actually make the connection at some point, and realise that that’s why you’re not being greeted as the saviour of Lichfield’s huddled masses. This continual ‘we’ business seems a tad messianic – beware, messiahs die young; often of public tedium.

    As for Twitter, if that’s the worst you managed to find I should look a bit harder.

    This is my last word, because I can see that you’re aching for the attention, and it never does to feed the energy monster. That’s where you’re all going wrong with Mr. Walker.

    Bob

  36. Unconcerned Citizen

    7th October, 2009 at 8:36 am

    Interesting points from Bob and Classcrisis.

    Bob talking of Mr Walker sorry to quote ..

    “There’s no need to posses an argument; his continued bad behaviour, headline grabbing publicity stunts and rent-a-quote rants demonstrate him to be nothing more than an immature, attention seeking self-publiscist”

    I think Bob has hit the Nail describing quiet a lot of politicians/councillors – but for some reason only wishes to attribute his ‘unoriginal not big, not clever’ comment to Mr Walker.

    Possesing an argument is essential to debate – and Bob should have taken his different argument (about classcrisis) elsewhere such as to his blog or to classcrisis blog.

  37. Class Crisis

    7th October, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    It doesn’t hold to compare LB to CC, different things altogether and their success doesn’t narc me or anyone else involved with CC. Quite the opposite. LB has limitations but is a positive thing on the whole, a useful resource for the people of Lichfield. Nothing has been done by CC that threatens that nor will it.

    The choice of the the theme is a leg pull resulting from a comment made by someone about paying hosting or buying shoes for their daughter which seems to have been taken rather badly but hey, humour often fails on the internet. All they had to say was change it and we would but they didn’t, instead we got some flannel about harming our identity.

    Supporting our perceived underdog is rubbish as well Bob seeing as we aren’t supporting Walker. But you know that anyway. If by intellectualising you mean being coherent then yes we are, you should try it.

  38. nonoftheabove

    13th October, 2009 at 7:20 pm

    It would appear Clr Walker has been taking lessons from Mr Fabricant, take as much as you can and dam the eloctorate. There was a time when Councillors did the job for the good of the community and not to line their pockets. It would be interesting to see exactly what he claims expenses for.