A ROW has erupted after opposition Conservatives accused a top South Gloucestershire councillor who represents Yate of “lying” on social media.

Tory group leader Cllr Sam Bromiley has demanded that council leader Cllr Maggie Tyrrell apologises and takes “immediate action” against her fellow Lib Dem cabinet member Cllr Chris Willmore over a Facebook post following a full council debate over savage government cuts to Winter Fuel Payments.

Cllr Tyrrell has hit back and defended Cllr Willmore, insisting she did not lie.

In the post on the Lib Dem-run Focus on Sodbury, Yate and Dodington page, cabinet member for planning, regeneration and infrastructure Cllr Willmore said: “Last night we had a shocking experience at full council.

“Lib Dem and Labour Councillors were putting forward a simple proposal that the leaders of the council should write to the government asking them to tackle the problem of pensioner poverty.

“Tories voted against. No reason. They just opposed it. Sometimes I despair.”

What happened at the meeting on October 16 was that the Conservatives tabled a motion calling on the government to reverse its cuts to the Winter Fuel Payments, which will leave 9.3 million of the 10.8 million pensioners who currently receive them losing out completely.

Labour, backed by its Lib Dem coalition administration allies, heavily reworded the motion and changed it to a call from the local authority to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to “consider a review of the current Pension Credit threshold to ensure it adequately protects the most vulnerable”.

After the amended motion was approved, Cllr Bromiley branded it a “miserable night for pensioners”.

Now he has taken issue with Cllr Willmore’s Facebook post the following morning, demanding a “crackdown on lies by Lib Dem and Labour councillors”.

In a letter to the council leader, Cllr Bromiley said his group could not support Labour’s “wrecking amendment”, which received backing from the Lib Dems, because it did not adequately address the axing of the Winter Fuel Payments.

Cllr Sam Bromiley (front centre) at South Gloucestershire Council full council meeting on Wednesday, October 16, 2024 

He said Cllr Willmore’s social media comments that the Tories voted against an attempt to “tackle the problem of pensioner poverty” was a lie that failed to mention the two parties running the council had refused to back the Conservatives’ motion.

He said: “Cllr Willmore’s statement cannot be characterised merely as a difference of opinion.

“It is, quite simply, a series of deliberate lies.

“If a senior councillor, paid a premium by the taxpayer for her role on cabinet, can tell the general public such flagrant lies then honesty and integrity in public office no longer matter and the Nolan Principles way as well be thrown in the bin.

“Honesty and integrity are the cornerstones of public service.

“The residents of our community rely on politicians to be truthful, transparent, and accountable.

“A failure to uphold these standards not only erodes public trust but also weakens the democratic process.”

In a letter reply to Cllr Bromiley on Wednesday, October 30, Cllr Tyrrell said: “I note that you were unhappy with the way the Labour group amended your motion at the last Full Council meeting and that you were unhappy with comments made on social media by one of my members.

“I dispute that any lying has taken place.

“When someone proposes an amendment, they are making a proposal – that is why we say they are proposing (or moving) an amendment.

“So it was perfectly correct to describe the Labour amendment as a PROPOSAL

“The original motion is a proposal. The amendment is a proposal. The Standing Orders describe both as proposals.

“The amended proposal was signed off by the Monitoring Officer as valid before the Council meeting.

“If you have any issues with that I suggest you take that up with the Monitoring Officer and Chair of Council who also accepted the amended proposal.

“Or are you disputing the impartiality and fairness of the Monitoring Officer and Chair of Council?

“Whilst your group made many arguments as to why your original motion was preferable to you in the course of the debate you did not explain why your group was unable to support the Leader and Co-Leader writing to the Chancellor asking ‘her to consider a review of the current Pension Credit threshold, set by the previous government, to ensure it adequately protects the most vulnerable, and rethink support to lower income pensioners so they do not need to rely on winter fuel handouts and can enjoy a decent standard of living during retirement’.

“Or why you did not support ‘That the Council builds on its work promoting Pension Credit to do all it can to ensure pensioners and others are aware of what they are entitled to through the Council’s regular communication channels, ensuring pensioners in South Gloucestershire know their local authority is on their side’.

“We are sorry that you were unable to support that, but are still unclear as to why you did not?”