100 Days of the New/Old Shirebrook Town Council

1 April is commonly known as April Fools’ Day, but this year it was also the 100-day anniversary of the historic first-ever co-option in Shirebrook Town Council’s history. Isn’t that ironic?
(to skip intro, go to chapter: SO, WHAT CHANGED? AND WHAT DIDN’T)

There is a political tradition in many countries that the opposition and journalists give newly elected politicians 100 days of peace, so they can introduce their first changes and policies undisturbed. I don’t subscribe to that tradition. In my opinion, scrutiny and oversight should be vigilant and constant — from election day to election day. For bloggers and journalists, every day should be open season for stupidity, corruption, and nepotism.

QUICK RECAP
For those who don’t follow local politics but want to know what happened, a quick recap.

2025 was a turbulent time for Shirebrook Town Council. The Labour Party, embroiled in several scandals and hiding from residents’ anger behind closed doors, finally cracked. Chris Kane was first to go — and I like to think he was forced out when Labour finally realised I was right about the pellet scandal. They looked at the exploding cost of pellet deliveries and pushed him out the door.

Shortly after Kane, the second key figure in the Labour operation fell. I won’t name him here. His resignation triggered something. Those who had sat on STC for decades, suddenly leaderless, began resigning one after another. Newly elected Labour councillors followed. Most likely, they had reached the same conclusion I had years earlier: STC was a cesspool of nepotism, shady deals and corruption, teetering on the edge of collapse. In the end, more than nine Labour-elected councillors left prematurely. One died in office — though not before a resignation letter purportedly submitted on his behalf was presented to the council. The letter was accepted by majority vote, though not without some dissent.

So many resignations broke the STC. Completely. There were not enough councillors left to conduct normal business. For a brief period, Shirebrook Town Council effectively ceased to exist. Bolsover District Council had to step in to save the day.

I WARNED ABOUT IT
Many years ago, I wrote an article titled “Shirebrook in Crisis.” You can read it and judge for yourself how accurately I predicted the mechanism of Labour’s fall:
https://shirebrook247.com/2021/05/24/shirebrook-in-crisis-debt-financial-crime-leadership-and-identity/

When I wrote that article, I could see the writing on the wall: old Labour was incapable of change. The same people, doing the same things year after year, with less and less enthusiasm and energy. Too old, too tired, and too focused on holding onto power and pushing away newcomers to do anything of value. The council was dominated by people in their eighties and nineties who voted however the party enforcers told them to. Every scandal was swept under the carpet. Every mistake covered up. Every tax rise — squandered. 100% Labour-led Council has no democratic oversight in the form of the opposition.

I knew it would end in catastrophe, but no one listened. Or they listened and ignored it out of spite. Either way, it all fell apart — and it is still falling. The process is not done yet. The majority of current STC councillors are newly co-opted. Those who won their seats in 2023 are now in the minority. Labour still holds power, but only with the support of Shirebrook Together.

Now you know everything. Now you are ready to look at the last 100 days with me and judge for yourself: has the change of councillors changed anything about how STC actually behaves as a political decision-making body?

SO, WHAT CHANGED? AND WHAT DIDN’T
Everything below is, of course, my personal opinion. Let’s start with what has changed for the better — and yes, there are some genuine positives, so bear with me. Then we will look at what has stayed exactly the same. And finally — and this is where it gets uncomfortable — we will look at what has actually gotten worse.

CHANGE FOR THE BETTER
I found only four items here. I genuinely hoped for more, but my brain simply cannot find anything else. Perhaps I am too close to it, too biased. Perhaps there is nothing more. Perhaps there will be more in the coming months. Feel free to educate me in the comments on Facebook. But for now, four positive changes, in my opinion…

First change for the better: increased frequency of STC meetings. In the old days, Labour would meet in the back room of some shady establishment, where the “leader” would tell the group what they would do — and then they would file into the STC chamber and rubber-stamp every decision already made behind closed doors. Brainless followers dutifully raised their hands every time the “comrade” said “NOW”. It probably ran like that for decades. I witnessed it in 2021–2023. Complicated issues solved with one sentence from the “big one” and his lapdog. Vote. Sorted. Moving on.

Second change for the better: publicly acknowledging STC’s serious financial difficulties. I have been attending STC meetings since 2019. In January 2026, Councillor Andrew Stevens did something that would previously have been unthinkable. He stated publicly that the town’s finances are in poor shape — that the town is running a deficit. At the time of writing, I cannot say what political affiliation Councillor Andrew Stevens has declared. He is one of those who has not yet responded to my email on the subject. Nevertheless, credit where it is due: he is the first councillor sitting at the top of STC to admit openly that STC is broke.

Third change for the better: STC finally has a functioning social media presence. Welcome to the twenty-first century, Shirebrook Town Council.

Fourth change for the better: the market sub-committee. New councillors finally recognised that the town’s Market Square is an asset worth developing and decided to focus attention on it. That is a genuine change for the better — and credit where it is due.

NO CHANGE
Now for what has not changed — what councillors have left untouched, despite the increased intensity of their work.

First: crime prevention. I proposed creating a dedicated crime prevention committee. The new STC decided to ignore the issue entirely. The STC liaison for Safe Neighbourhood is a 93-year-old man. Police flagged concerns about the CCTV system, yet there was not a single moment of discussion about crime prevention on any Full Council meeting I attended in 2026. Meanwhile, Shirebrook remains in the top ten most crime-ridden towns in Derbyshire, while spending over £400,000 on leisure. So — nothing changed.

Second: political transparency. The increased frequency of meetings has been met with an increase in exempt meetings. Once again, a Labour-dominated council is trying to hide everything from residents — and the opposition goes along with it like sheep (most likely due to a lack of experience — it was most evident when Cllr Michael Yates proposed changing co-option rules, and the opposition just voted as he wanted, even though it was against policy itself).

On the subject of opposition: I would encourage anyone interested to compare the words “personal” and “personnel” in the Local Government Act 1972. These are not the same word, and they do not mean the same thing. Schedule 12A of that Act — which governs when councils can legitimately exclude the public — uses the word “personal,” meaning information relating to a specific individual. It does not give councils a blank cheque to hide anything they label as “personnel matters.”

Furthermore, both the Local Government Act 1972 and the Localism Act 2011 start from the same principle: the default position must always be disclosure. Withholding information from the public requires specific legal justification — not convenience, not embarrassment, not political self-interest.

I suspect I am the only representative of the opposition who has read either of those pieces of legislation in full. My brain almost melted, but I went through both Acts and made notes. Perhaps one day, residents will vote me back onto STC, so I can demonstrate how to speak openly about the things that those in power would prefer to keep behind closed doors.

Let me be clear: STC is not MI6. Everything paid for by the taxpayer is legally open for discussion — within defined limits, yes, but open nonetheless. You just need to know how. I have that knowledge, and I believe that is precisely why Labour votes against me in every round of co-option. The law is my armour. Freedom of speech is my sword. Following the procedures is my strategy. That is why Labour is scared of me — not because I am some kind of evil man. They are scared of me for precisely the opposite reason: I am one of those who are brave enough to fight for what is right, even when the fight gets uncomfortable, borderline dangerous (Chris Kane’s violent outburst in Chamber of STC).

Third: the Leisure Centre deficit. A chronic, ongoing problem with no resolution and no apparent will to discuss the root cause — the net-zero deals and overblown staff costs.

Fourth: meeting minutes. STC held 13 meetings in the first three months of 2026, yet only four sets of minutes have been published. I understand that some minutes can only be published after being approved at a subsequent meeting, but when you analyse the meeting calendar, something is clearly missing. There should be significantly more minutes available.

Fifth: the Council Chair ignores emails. The new Chair personally asked me for copies of FOI requests that the Town Clerk had ignored throughout 2025 — and there were quite a few of them. I spent hours preparing the documents and sent them, and the new Labour Party Chair of STC ignored them entirely. No reply, no acknowledgement of receipt. Nothing. Literally nothing. It feels like the Chris Kane days all over again.

A small aside. I anticipated that the Labour Chair would play deaf, so I sent copies to the Vice-Chair as well. Councillor Andrew Stevens confirmed receipt of his copy. Labour Party Councillor Dale Smith? Silence. Same pattern as every previous Labour Chair. No change.

Sixth: ever-growing council tax. Eleven rises in twelve years — and the new council has added another increase of over 3%. The pattern is unbroken. Labour reaches deeper into your pocket while services and the town itself do not improve.

Seventh: uncontrolled spending on shows and entertainment. STC has run a deficit for two consecutive years, yet no events have been cancelled and no savings introduced. We are going down — sinking — but the orchestra plays on. Entertainment is Labour’s answer to everything.

Eighth: the pellet audit. Delivery costs increased by 145%, and I personally offered to fund an independent audit. Let me write that again, in capital letters: I OFFERED TO COVER THE COST OF A FORENSIC AUDIT, AND LABOUR WOULDN’T EVEN TALK ABOUT IT. How does that smell to you? All good — or is something rotting underneath? Every previous Labour administration refused to engage in any discussion about the net-zero contracts. This administration is doing exactly the same.

WORSE — BUCKLE UP
Even if you can overlook the things that haven’t changed, the fact that several issues have worsened should alarm you. This is the darkest part of my analysis.

First: the Leisure Centre wall crack. I have no idea what STC is discussing behind closed doors in exempt meetings. But if this issue is left unaddressed, it could end in real disaster. We need transparency and urgent action on this matter — now.

Second: the second round of co-option. The process was marred by controversy — STC broke its own co-option policy. Councillor Michael Yates changed the rules mid-process, in breach of the policy itself. This is Labour at its finest: Yates was elected under one set of rules, so when others tried to follow the same path, the rules were simply changed to make it harder. That is the Labour way — one standard for themselves, another for everyone else. Two-tier Yates?

Third: procedural integrity. The most recent Personnel Committee summons was signed by Councillor Martin Barber instead of the Proper Officer. I have a copy of that summons. I do not know whether that meeting went ahead, but if it did, it was unlawful. Full stop.

I know readers might skim past this point. Please don’t. This is a major issue. MAJOR.

Under Standing Order 15(a) and 15(b)(i) of STC’s own Standing Orders, it is the Proper Officer — the Clerk, or a nominated staff member — who is required to serve a signed summons on councillors before any meeting. Not a councillor. Not a committee chairman. The Proper Officer. Furthermore, Standing Order 25(a) is equally clear: unless authorised by a resolution, no councillor shall issue orders, instructions or directions. A summons is precisely that — an instruction to attend.

Councillor Martin Barber signed that summons as Committee Chairman. That is not his role. That is not his legal authority. Someone on STC went along with it — knowingly or otherwise. Either way, the result is the same: a potentially unlawful meeting of a committee that handles the council’s most sensitive personnel matters.

Councillor Barber — I say this not as an insult but as a warning: read the legislation before you go any further down this road. This document exists. It is dated. It is signed. And it will be used. Councillors ignoring basic legal requirements is not a minor procedural slip. It is a warning sign of much bigger problems to come. Learn from Labour mistakes, not copy them.

A final observation on that agenda. Item P/26/018 reads: “To review formal complaint regarding resident’s social media post/page.” I invite you to read that slowly. A Personnel Committee — whose entire purpose is staff and employment matters — scheduled a discussion about a resident’s social media page. In a fully exempt meeting. Behind closed doors. With the press and public excluded. That sounds like something straight out of the communist regime politburo.

I do not know who that resident is. I do not know which social media page is being discussed. But I do not need to know. The question is not who — the question is what authority does a Personnel Committee have to discuss any resident’s social media activity? The answer is none. Zero. It is outside their remit entirely. Whatever was discussed in that room, it was discussed in secret, in the wrong committee, summoned unlawfully. Residents of Shirebrook should ask themselves: if they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?

Fourth: the Town Clerk. Jennifer Jeffery’s non-compliance with her legal obligations remains an ongoing and unresolved issue. FOI requests ignored. Minutes publication delayed. And now a summons signed by a councillor rather than the Proper Officer. On top of that, she has chosen to work from home while councillors have made clear they want her present in the chamber.

But there is more. As the Responsible Financial Officer, her Finance Reports have been riddled with errors. She withheld information originating from the MP’s office. She concealed the fact that STC’s loan from Bolsover District Council had been extended (old case, but still evidence of wrongdoing). All of this is documented. I wrote a full article about her conduct — you can read it here:
https://shirebrook247.com/2025/09/22/town-clerk-of-shirebrook-town-council/

The list of concerns is long. It is evidenced. And it is growing. In my view, STC urgently needs to address whether its current Clerk is capable of fulfilling the role taxpayers are funding.

EPILOGUE — MY PREDICTION
In 2021, I predicted that Labour’s grip on Shirebrook Town Council would end in collapse. Nobody listened, and those who did laughed at me. I was right. Now I have another prediction.

Shirebrook Town Council is healing — but too slowly to see any real difference yet. For now, all changes are cosmetic and look superficial, made for publicity rather than substance. I know that with time, we will see more changes, but in the first 100 days, all deep structural problems remain hidden behind the “exempt” clause or are simply never discussed. Reason? Labour leadership and Shirebrook Together’s naive approach to cooperation with them.

Labour still holds power, and they have a plan: if they lose the next election, they intend to use their inside knowledge of all problems to counter-attack. They will use the chaos they created and left behind to undermine anyone who tries to fix it by taking harsh, decisive action. They will deploy every tool available — propaganda paper, unions, family networks, NGOs and companies that benefited from Labour in power for years — to impede genuine reform of STC.

And you know what? I predict that they will lose. If those who genuinely want to improve this town win in 2027, we will see massive improvement. Quickly. And after that, Shirebrook will never go back to Labour.

This time, my prediction is optimistic. Whether it comes true is in your hands — at the ballot box. Stay home or vote Labour, and you will get more of the same. Vote for new people, for those who want to reform how STC operates, and Shirebrook will be transformed into a leader of the region. Good luck, Shirebrook. It is all in your hands. We are just 397 days away from full local elections in Shirebrook.

Sylwester Zwierzynski info@shirebrook247.com