I was interestedly reading some comments about Cllr Tony Vickers earlier. Mr Garvie made an inresting statement when he said that Tony Vickers only cares about his own issues. I know Tony and I think you're unfair. I know we're not allowed to use words like pillock here, so I'll content myself to say that Tony is the most unhelpful, unfriendly and dissinterested Councillor I've ever known, and I've known a good few, from a good few councils!
However, Tony isn't the subject here. I also noticed some acid comments about council officers in general. Now, I know that I'm a dimwit, with no grasp of reality, and here's how I know.
Stupid me always thought that the idea of a Council was to be paid to do things for the community. In my innocence, I imagined that Councillors are the people who direct the council officers. I imagined that Councillors were there to represent their constituents.
Sounds like a good idea for a Democracy, does anyone fancy trying it? If we're successful, perhaps we can submit it as an idea for governing ourselves as a nation. We could call this radical idea, 'Democratic Government'.
Might be hard to make it work in practice though, it sounds too hard...
Sounds like a good idea for a Democracy, does anyone fancy trying it? If we're successful, perhaps we can submit it as an idea for governing ourselves as a nation. We could call this radical idea, 'Democratic Government'.
Might be hard to make it work in practice though, it sounds too hard...
Excellent idea. All you have to do is to get yourself elected. You have three choices: join one of the established parties, stand as an independent or start your own party. You'll find all the information you need here http://www.beacouncillor.org.uk/couldibe/
It's great to see people who want to take part in improving their community rather than just slagging off others anonymously here. It's all too easy for the pillocks of this world to waste their time doing that, isn't it? Good luck to you. I'm really looking forward to the improvements you'll make when you're in power.
You are right about councils, I can't comment on Mr Vickers as I don't know him, but the whole problem with local politics is exactly that, politics.
Why should councils be allowed to maintain a two or three party system which, as a group, believe that they are allied to the governing parties at Westminster. Minor jobsworths acting up their importance, spending more of their time bickering and blaming the opposite party rather than working together to do a job for the ratepayers.
Excellent idea. All you have to do is to get yourself elected. You have three choices: join one of the established parties, stand as an independent or start your own party. You'll find all the information you need here http://www.beacouncillor.org.uk/couldibe/
It's great to see people who want to take part in improving their community rather than just slagging off others anonymously here. It's all too easy for the pillocks of this world to waste their time doing that, isn't it? Good luck to you. I'm really looking forward to the improvements you'll make when you're in power.
Well said. Personally I hope to see lots of people standing in the elections next year, including the Green Guerilla Party.
The more people that stand, the greater the validity of those that win.
Another well said. Particularly if the Green Guerilla Party thinks the word Pillock is offensive and "slag" is perfectly acceptable.
Eh? 'Slag' would be completely unacceptable, obviously. I stand by my previous comment. If Green Guerilla is going to do more than throw insults around here and actually do something constructive, good luck to him/her. We can all moan: as our Prime Minister says, it's time to stop moaning and do something.
Eh? 'Slag' would be completely unacceptable, obviously. I stand by my previous comment. If Green Guerilla is going to do more than throw insults around here and actually do something constructive, good luck to him/her. We can all moan: as our Prime Minister says, it's time to stop moaning and do something.
Yep ! I am afraid that's what he said on another thread - little charmer !
I know we're not allowed to use words like pillock here, so I'll content myself to say that Tony is the most unhelpful, unfriendly and dissinterested Councillor I've ever known, and I've known a good few, from a good few councils!
I think an apology is due here.
This is a vile calumny, and as such must be offensive to all pillocks everywhere.
Yep ! I am afraid that's what he said on another thread - little charmer !
Oh dear. He's probably been watching East Enders a lot. I don't watch it myself but I believe the epithet in question is part of every day discourse on the show and Green Guerilla may find distinguishing between fiction and real life rather challenging.
He obviously needs to get out more and I have a modest suggestion for ensuring that he does.
As we're all well aware, thanks to the economic chaos left by Gordon 'Prudence' Brown our new Dear Leaders Cameron and Clegg are about to dismantle our public services. While many of the regulars here will rejoice at the idea of thousands of public sector redundancies I can foresee a few problems.
For example, I hate litter and the thought of being knee deep in it as a result of the cuts is very depressing. But simply hating it doesn't get rid of it and the solution is, literally, in our hands. I propose that we should launch the Newbury.net Campaign For a Litter Free Newbury. How is that going to work, I hear you ask? Does it involve moaning endlessly here about the litter on our streets?
No, it's simpler and more constructive than that. The NNCFALFN works like this. Next time you see some litter don't write to the council or complain about it here: pick it up and put it in a bin.
I vote that we put Green Guerilla in charge of this campaign so that a. he gets out more and b. before we vote for him when he stands for West Berks council we can see how good he is at actually organising something rather than just complaining about it.
I'm laughing my head off at the moment, thank you all for your responses!
Threep, I apologise if I have offended pillocks by association, it was purely unintentional!
I am indeed a charmer, PaulaM. 'Little' does not apply. I can use many words that are offensive, none of them need be from the vernacular. It does not serve to obfuscate the issue by drawing in issues that I may have raised elsewhere, but yes, 'slag' is a word I use, from the vernacular, to describe prostitutes. A rose by any other name, as it were. I didn't say that I thought 'pillock' to be offensive, the statement was contextual. Try again.
I have improved communities, and I didn't need to be in politics to do so. Read on, Noobree.
I have 'done something more constructive' in my professional life, and litteraly thousands of people have benefitted from it. I often had to do it AGAINST the political efforts of councillors and council officers, and that was because I knew what I was talking about, so I didn't talk, I DID. Q, as they say, ED. However, to tell you what it was would be to tell you who I am, and I prefer not to.
If you'd like to read the original post again, you might be able to discern the point. Oh, and when it comes to my personal poiltics, the obvious clue that you clearly missed is Green guerilla. Not blue, red or yellow.
This is NOT about Tony, OK? To clarify. I like Tony Vickers as a person, he's a very nice chap. As a Councillor, no. If I vote for someone other than Tony, I end up with no representation at Council. Not only that, but, because of his personal beliefs, Tony will not represent my views.
This is always true, under our current political system.
The point is repeatedly made elsewhere, and I simply repeat it. Council officers are supposed to be there to provide public services. Councillors are supposed to represent the views of all of their constituents. Neither of these statements represent reality.
I'm all for the privatisation of Public services (having demonstrated the astonishingly successful results of doing so) and I'm certainly in favour of getting rid of council officers. The exceptions are the ones who provide a good, responsive service, tempered with the humility to want to understand the value of customer service.
As his post shows, Brian completely gets the point. You others are council customers too, do you feel valued and responded to as such?
Green guerrilla, I totally agree with your point that the idea of a council is to do things for the community. Sadly, in my opinion West Berkshire Council seems to be doing things very much in their own interests and not in the best interest of the community. They seem to have forgotten that even local government is ‘government for the people by the people’.
A perfect example of this is the way they have withdrawn working hours restrictions from successful planning applications, leaving neighbouring residents open to noise and disruption 24 X 7. This is not in the best interests of the community. It costs nothing to include this restriction but for reasons best known to themselves West Berkshire Council have removed it.
See my recent thread on this forum about this issue - http://www.newbury.net/forum/m-1286625541/ You will also see information on this thread on how to contact your local councillor on these sorts of matters. I have also included contact details for the Executive Councillor for Planning.
The only way to change things is to contact your councillor on these vital issues and voice your disagreement. I have noticed that very little happens if only one person complains to a councillor, but action is usually taken if several people take up the issue.
It costs nothing to send an email and make your voice heard. This is as much a part of the democratic process as voting.
I have raised many issues with Tony Vickers, expecting him to reply as my councillor. Instead, he nearly always says that he'll ask a council officer, then tells me that the council officer says 'no'.
Exceptions to this are when he doesn't want a development at the end of his (shared) private road, when he wants bicycles to be encouraged, and when he wants a town centre road closed to parking.
I wonder what would happen if every ward in Newbury managed to elect an independent representative? I wonder what would happen if we had all opinions represented at the council?
And I wonder what would happen if any proposed change needed the support of 80% of the voting public before it could be made?
Some say 'well, nothing would change', to which I reply that change for change' sake isn't necessarily a good thing, and not changing things does imply a certain stability in society.
One thing seems to have been forgotten by some here. The people of West Berkshire elect our local councillors, so you're really arguing against the electorate of West Berkshire if you're saying that they don't represent your views, particular if it's a councillor that has been returned to office as I think Tony Vickers has.
I suggest that all the moaners put their money where their mouth is and stand for election next May. In truth I suspect it will be only a very small amount of people such as BrianB and Richard Garvie willing to risk public humiliation and those like our new friend will be nowhere to be seen until a few months later when they'll be back moaning how they could do things so much better.
I think public humiliation is a touch harsh, we will put our ideas forward for people to vote for or against those plans. Unlike previous local elections, we will be publishing a very clear and viable manifesto. Hopefully the Libs and the Tories do the same, so the party elected has a clear mandate to achieve what they say they want to achieve. Rather than simply asking people to vote on parties according to national politics, let's have some debate on local issues for once.
Methinks that is exactly what you are doing. You automatically link yourself to a national political party by proposing to issue a Labour manifesto as will Lib dem and Conservative. By the way, how can you expect to get anybody into WBC with the tag 'Labour'. All the while that each of the people who want to be councillors link to a political party, the election will be around the party rather than the person. Around here, you know what the result will be.
I think public humiliation is a touch harsh, we will put our ideas forward for people to vote for or against those plans.
It's we now is it, earlier in the week it was "I will be publishing a manifesto", why the change?
You've built it up so much that people are crying out for change that should you fail to be elected I'd class that as humiliation. Don't let it stop you from standing though, everyone has to start somewhere and I'm sure than many of the Labour MPs now in safe seats started by standing in un-winnable wards or constituencies.
User, you seem to be in need of a basic lesson in politics, which probably means you're a tory. I'll try to keep it simple so that you can understand. I apologise for my previous attempts at using allegory.
The 'people of West Berkshire' vote for their favoured candidate in their respective ward, if they vote at all. The 'people of West Berkshire' didn't ask you to speak for them. However, like them, I don't vote for every candidate in every ward.
I don't know anyone who does.
The 'people of West Berkshire' didn't vote for Richard Benyon, but apparently enough of them did. It wasn't even 50% of the eligible Residents. As a tory, you'll now come back with 'you get what you deserve'.
Quite.
The main reason that 'the people of West Berkshire' don't bother voting is what, User? You don't even know, despite being their self-elected spokesperson.
It is false to suggest that in every ward, everyone voted for the same candidate. Many voted for another candidate, many didn't vote at all. If the winning candidate doesn't represent a person's views, then a person's views don't get represented at all.
The idea behind Proportional Representation is to get all views represented at decision making time. Tony Vickers supports PR, and so represents my personal view of our current voting system. However, he hates cars, and that's bad news for those of his constituents who have to use a car for work, because he won't represent their views.
In a 'first past the post' election, you only need 1 more vote than the runner up to win. Clearly the views of those who voted for the runner up aren't going to be represented for the next four years. The legitimacy of first past the post voting is long discredited, and our society is constantly pulled from Left to Right as a result.
Only a consensus represents everyone, and we don't even have a consensus as to what proportion of the vote represents a consensus! Truly though, if we don't seek one, we won't find one.
So, how do we get council officers to work with a better, more customer focused attitude? We could elect them...?
You seem to be suggesting that under FPP not everyone in West Berkshire gets the chance to vote. Wrong, of course, it's up to them if they use their right to vote. They can also stand as an independent, as they can under PR of course, but I'll explain why this doesn't work well in a bit.
You're saying that PR would fix the problem of voter apathy. I don't see how it would. Under PR there's more chance you could be allocated someone you didn't vote for from the list to represent you and its likely that one lucky ward would get a BNP councillor, I'll come on to this later.
You're saying that society and therefore the council under FPP is "constantly pulled from Left to Right" however on local boards I see more comment that the Tories and the Liberals are too similar. Under PR it's likely we'd have a BNP, UKIP and all sorts of other radical new parties representing us, more Right and perhaps more Left than we have now too.
Then there's independents, the bloke in the street representing his local area. Its unlikely we'd ever have any of these under PR (as we have had under FPP) as they'd not get enough votes compared to the many candidates of each political party.
Sorry to disappoint you, but PR doesn't work at local level.
FPTP will help the Lib Dems in areas where it's a straight run between them and the Tories and likewise where Labour are in a marginal versus the Tories. As the Tories would never vote Labour at a national election, the Libs benefit there too so my own opinion is that the reason they want PR / AV is so they can get more seats. Would you trust Clegg or his party after what we have now.
Back onto the local election, I was asked for a quote the other day as to whether I will be trying to poach candidates from other parties due to the coalition. My response was that although it would be easy to exploit mistakes made on a national level, we want this election next year to be fought on local issues. I wouldn't want anyone joining Labour here that is tainted by the poor decisions of the past or anyone who is just after a boost in their own political career. We have to remember that Labour did make mistakes nationally, and if we start exploiting the mistakes of the national parties then the local issues will be ignored. The only national issue that applies to the local election is this: If you vote for the Liberals, will they join up with the Tories after the local elections to ensure that there is no "change"???
User23: It became "we" a couple of weeks ago when I was appointed community organiser / campaign manager for the party.
Brian: National Politics are very different to local politics. Do you think Cameron cares about where housing developments are sited in West Berk, local bus services to Lambourn or that it's actually the officers making the decisions here??? Likewise, do you really think Clegg or Miliband care???
What we need is manifestos from each party outlining what they want to achieve in West Berks over the four year term. We are deliberately publishing ours at the end of November to signal a clear message of intent. Hopefully the Libs and the Tories will adopt a lot of what we propose, but when it comes to trust, how can you trust the current members to implement these policies when they have continually failed the public over the past decade or longer.
West Berkshire has an effective Labour Party now and we are hoping to contest every seat. We will work with other small parties and independenys if they wish to ensure that there is a clear choice in this election: Vote Tory or Lib Dem and be stuck with the same rubbish we have had for years, or vote Labour and any others who have a clear vision about how to move forward. I am looking for people to be on our policy focus group, let me know if you would be interested. (that includes you too User23)
Where is West Berkshire Labour Party based, in case anyone wants to pop along at a time to suit them to pick up the manifesto or any other literature?
Regarding other small parties in West Berkshire, at the last election they were the Green Party, UKIP and the BNP, you'll be working with all three of these will you?
On the one hand, we have User23.3 who wants to keep a system that's hundreds of years old - obviously old school 'it's your count that votes'. The point of having UKIP, BNP, Green or any other is that they represent a core of thought, and all thoughts should be represented. My view of so-called 'voter apathy' is that it's very much a reflection of the average person's recognition that if voting really changed anything, it would be illegal. It's humour, but the basis is a serious issue, if you would only pay attention.
PR can work very well indeed. The idea that a vote can go where you don't want it to is rubbish, but that depends very much on the system of PR in use. First and foremost, we need to understand that a vote 'not for' is exactly that - an abstention is truly a vote against. Nationaly, FPTP keeps putting a minority group in power. This notion is not fit for purpose in a modern world.
It's not for User23.3 or anyone else to tell people how to think, we've already got thought policing and it's about time it was stopped in its' tracks.
On the other hand, we have Richard Garvie who wants EVERYONE included in the decision making process, regardless of what they think. The BNP/UKIP/Greens all have a point, and the rise of Nationalist parties across Europe tends to suggest that the same point is well-made everywhere. If you don't know what people think, and allow them to express it publicly without fear, you drive it underground where it festers. You can kill people, but you can't kill an idea.
I'm not standing up for anyone in particular here, I'm standing up for everyone. I may not like what someone says, but I don't have the arrogance to presume a right to prevent them from saying it. User23.3 represents a very dangerous element in society - those who would deny others their right to express themselves freely.
As Richard says, National issues are not Local issues except in a broad sense. Or, as Tony Vickers said recently (trying to sound clever but actually repeating something that's been Green policy for the last 35 years) 'Think globally, act Locally'.
AV, not PR, is the system we will be voting for or against in the forthcoming referendum on how we should elect our MPs. This is not a system that will favour minority parties, in most cases it will just make the voting for the two main parties in a constituency a bit closer.
It seems to me to be a slightly better, slightly fairer method of voting to the current FPTP system - but I don't know if it would make that much difference in a general election. If it were a really radical change the Tories would never have agreed to the referendum.
AV, not PR, is the system we will be voting for or against in the forthcoming referendum on how we should elect our MPs. This is not a system that will favour minority parties, in most cases it will just make the voting for the two main parties in a constituency a bit closer.
It seems to me to be a slightly better, slightly fairer method of voting to the current FPTP system - but I don't know if it would make that much difference in a general election. If it were a really radical change the Tories would never have agreed to the referendum.
Virtually everyone I spoke to during my General Election campaign told me that they were either voting Conservative or Lib Dem, but that I would have been their second choice if they had had one.
In my personal opinion, there is no place in politics for the BNP.
As for collecting a copy of the manifesto, there will be a launch event in November or you can send me your email address and I will get one over to you.
Virtually everyone I spoke to during my General Election campaign told me that they were either voting Conservative or Lib Dem, but that I would have been their second choice if they had had one.
I'd rather stick with FPTP, which isn't exactly the Labour Party line nationally. I just think that you should have one vote, and you vote for who you want. What isn't fair about somebody getting more votes than the other candidates??? (and I ask that as a genuine question)
Brian: National Politics are very different to local politics. Do you think Cameron cares about where housing developments are sited in West Berk, local bus services to Lambourn or that it's actually the officers making the decisions here??? Likewise, do you really think Clegg or Miliband care???
Sorry, I thought that was what I said. If you agree then why are you aligning yourself to a national party when it has no place in local politics.
Judging by PaulaM, there's plenty of room for cheap, but pointless, point scoring. Well done to her for trying, but failing, to reduce the average intelligence of this debate back to playground level. She illustrates perfectly just why so many people don't care to vote, because you can watch this kind of behaviour any day on Parliament TV.
And she still doesn't know my true political colours...
Richard. Please can you explain what you mean by 'there is no place in politics for the British Nationalist Party' when they clearly represent a given section of society's ideology?
As I see it, plenty of people once said 'there's no place in politics for the like of the IRA', and arguably they did far more damage, despite the Tory party attempting to gag them in the same way that some would gag the BNP.
I am not defending ANY political ideology, but I will defend to the death the principal of free speech. Anyone else for principals?
Judging by PaulaM, there's plenty of room for cheap, but pointless, point scoring. Well done to her for trying, but failing, to reduce the average intelligence of this debate back to playground level. She illustrates perfectly just why so many people don't care to vote, because you can watch this kind of behaviour any day on Parliament TV. Says the person who calls women slags and builders "juniors"
And she still doesn't know my true political colours... Maybe not but we can see YOUR true colours
Richard. Please can you explain what you mean by 'there is no place in politics for the British Nationalist Party' when they clearly represent a given section of society's ideology? Self explanatory to any decent person.
As I see it, plenty of people once said 'there's no place in politics for the like of the IRA', and arguably they did far more damage, despite the Tory party attempting to gag them in the same way that some would gag the BNP.
I am not defending ANY political ideology, but I will defend to the death the principal of free speech. Anyone else for principals? Yes, we agree on something, you are perfectly entitled to have your say, as am I. However there is a difference between having a say and being offensive/nasty. I notice at least one of your comments had to be removed from this forum. So I am guessing you're not from the Diplomatic Core
User23.3 represents a very dangerous element in society - those who would deny others their right to express themselves freely.
You're on the wind up, right?
FPP doesn't stop people expressing themselves freely, in fact it under FPP an individual, independent candidate competes on equal terms at the ballot box with a party of thousands. For example a vote for BrianB should he wish to stand is worth exactly the same as on one for the Liberal Democrats. This isn't true under PR.
Perhaps you should read up a bit more before telling everyone what's best for us.
Richard, you said you were going to work with the smaller parties in West Berkshire. The BNP is one of those parties with support in West Berkshire, so is UKIP, will you be working with these parties given they're two of three "other" parties that stood at the last local elections?
You also said Labour are now an effective party in West Berkshire. Where are your offices so I can drop in for some literature?
There is no office that is open to the general public as yet, but as I say, I am more than happy to email you when it's ready. Should I send it to your work email?
You get to choose which is a legitimate political party now do you?
Yes, send it to my work email, or whatever you think that might be.
Well, if you class them as a party I'm pretty surprised. I thought you more than anyone would agree that their views are not acceptable within our community. Recognising them as a legitimate party will only encourage them.
Of course they're a political party you just don't happen to agree with them. Bernard Manning was a racist comic who I disliked, but I'd never try and argue he wasn't a comedian. I don't like pears much but I wouldn't argue they're not a fruit.
One political party shouldn't pick and choose which others are valid, that's what happens in a dictatorship.
You've reversed what you said only yesterday. How are people ever to trust Labour in West Berkshire if they can't keep some promises for longer than a day?
I'd rather stick with FPTP, which isn't exactly the Labour Party line nationally. I just think that you should have one vote, and you vote for who you want. What isn't fair about somebody getting more votes than the other candidates??? (and I ask that as a genuine question)
The basic unfairness is that many MPs have more votes cast against them (ie for all opposing candidates combined) and hence cannot really be said to represent the constituency as a whole.
AV attempts to resolve this unfairness by allowing voters to show their order of preference - the MP elected may not be the majority's first choice but he/she will have more than 50% of the voters expressing a level of preference for him/her (the MP would most likely be the first or second choice of most of the voters). At the last election for Newbury Benyon polled more than 50% of the votes cast and so AV would not have come into play at all.
All this talk about PR is nothing to do with the decision that faces us next year - is this an example of how the Labour/Tory coalition against AV is going to campaign?
Hardly a valid point User23. What political party invested huge time and resource into stopping the BNP from being elected at the general election this year??? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't the Tories, Lib Dems, Greens or UKIP. Labour fought a huge campaign and in the end totally destroyed Nick Griffin.
Is that Nick Griffin MEP that they "totally destroyed"? You're already rubbishing local councillors, national parties and now an MEP; is this how Labour is going to conduct its campaign? I'm no fan of the BNP but they should be allowed to express their views unless a court and NOT the Labour Party rules otherwise.
The basic unfairness is that many MPs have more votes cast against them (ie for all opposing candidates combined) and hence cannot really be said to represent the constituenct as a whole.
AV attempts to resolve this unfairness by allowing voters to show their order of preference - the MP elected may not be the majority's first choice but he/she will have more than 50% of the voters expressing a level of preference for him/her (the MP would most likely be the first or second choice of most of the voters). At the last election for Newbury Benyon polled more than 50% of the votes cast and so AV would not have come into play at all.
All this talk about PR is nothing to do with the decision that faces us next year - is this an example of how the Labour/Tory coalition against AV is going to campaign?
The Labour Party are actually going to support it as far as I know. Personally, I will vote against it.
I love the old Aesop's fables, and folk wisdom in general. They can highlight truisms that are just as relevant today as they've always been. Something to do with knowing how people work, I think!
What I'd really like to see is a general agreement between all of usd that FPTP is an old system that's no longer relevant. If we could do that, we could separate it out and make it a sole issue.
They have all tried to manipulate the vote in the past. After all, Labour have been guilty in the past of outrageous but favourable boundary changes. Conservatives and Liberals have done the same by being selective about WHO can vote.
Now that we all, as has been pointed out, have an EQUAL vote, I believe that we are entitled to equal representation, at all poilitical levels, at all times. Currently, we can only align our general opinions with a particular party, which means we end up accepting things that we don't like, to get the things that we do like. Some call it compromise. I may accept compromise, but I shouldn't have to vote for things that I don't want.
Things will change, of course, but the speed of change is proportional to our willingness to embrace it. Why don't we call on our representatives to make this a single issue and commence some trials to see how the many options can work in practice, and which one we'd like to use?
Two dogs fight over a bone, whilst the third one runs away with it.
What I'd really like to see is a general agreement between all of usd that FPTP is an old system that's no longer relevant. If we could do that, we could separate it out and make it a sole issue.
Sadly this idea falls at the first hurdle - we obviously don't all agree that FPTP needs changing.
Ed has said at the Labour conference that he will vote yes on AV. I think that if a candidate is good enough they will win. If I don't get elected at the local elections, it's because I haven't got my message over cleary and a better candidate won. If I stood in Thatcam Central and the libs came third and most of the second prefs went to me giving me victory, how could I look in the mirror and say I had "won"?
I believe it's the other content within the bill that Labour oppose. Ed called on Clegg to split the bill to allow AV through but Cameron won't allow it!!!
And here, Richard lies the problem. You concern yourself with 'winners and losers', a system we've had, in various guises, for a few hundred years and that no longer seems to represent either the society we live in, or the aspirations of the public.
You aren't elected as a winner, you're elected to represent your constituents. But you can't, because some of those representations will inevitably compete. It's like being environmental enough to be anti bypass, but pro the transport lobby enough to campaign for it. I'm after consensus, not the continuing politics of triumphalism.
We shouldn't do ANYTHING in society unless at least 70% of people want to. As things stand, we will never see a government that has the support of even half the people of this country. Is it fair that the majority should be ruled by a minority, or should parliament reflect the wishes of the majority?
Sadly this idea falls at the first hurdle - we obviously don't all agree that FPTP needs changing.
Exactly right, not a local level anyway which is what we're talking about. PR favours parties over people so the independent candidate stands much less chance of getting elected under PR. FPP is a much better system at local level as all votes are counted equally, unlike PR.
Here's how it works, in this scenario there are two seats up for grabs, of course usually there'd be a lot more. BrianB stands for election against three members of the Labour Party, Tony, Gordon and Ed, on that order on the list. BrianB gets 700 votes, Tony gets 600, Gordon 500 and Ed 301 votes.
So what happens, BrianB gets elected, right? Nope the Tony takes the first seat for the Labour Party. But there's two seats so BrianB wins the second, doesn't he, he got the most votes? Nope, under the D'Hondt system of PR (used for the EU Elections) Gordon takes the second seat also for the Labour Party. Seem fair and equal to you, Gordon and Tony got elected but BrianB got the most votes.
There is no point discussing the relative merits of any particular system, if we can't agree that the present one needs to be changed. I can think of other examples of things in our society that have remained unchanged for hundreds of years - don't we keep them in musea?
All you argue for is to keep people dissempowered. I find nothing empowering about having someone represent me at the law-making body of this country, who is philosphicaly opposed to my views. The same goes for having some say in the future of my town.
It is better to try and fail than never to try at all, isn't it? To stand still is to stagnate.
All you argue for is to keep people dissempowered. I find nothing empowering about having someone represent me at the law-making body of this country, who is philosphicaly opposed to my views. The same goes for having some say in the future of my town.
I've explained exactly why PR is worse at local level for the independent candidate with an example of it giving political parties a big advantage over the single person standing for election. Hardy fair or "empowering" is it.
Now stop waffling unless you can produce an example that shows the reverse with it giving more power to the individual than the big national parties.
How many different ways of delivering PR have you looked at? Why pick on one that you say doesn't work, now give an example of one that you know does work so that we know you are taking an informed and balanced view.
How many different ways of delivering PR have you looked at? Why pick on one that you say doesn't work, now give an example of one that you know does work so that we know you are taking an informed and balanced view.
Can't, can ya?
Now stop waffling and do the research.
I've picked the system we already use in this country for EU elections. If we switched to PR for local elections as you want, D'Hondt is very likely the version of PR we'd use. Surely you already knew this being an expert on PR?
What you've done there is asked me to do exactly what I asked of you, then said I'm waffling, which is what I said of you. I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
So, I'll ask again, let's see your example of PR giving the individual, independent candidate power or at least an example where their votes are worth equal to those of the parties.
I've picked the system we already use in this country for EU elections. If we switched to PR for local elections as you want, D'Hondt is very likely the version of PR we'd use. Surely you already knew this being an expert on PR?
What you've done there is asked me to do exactly what I asked of you, then said I'm waffling, which is what I said of you. I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
So, I'll ask again, let's see your example of PR giving the individual, independent candidate power or at least an example where their votes are worth equal to those of the parties.
Logged
Male
