I don't think it would. I reckon that the following seats are winnable for non Tory parties:

Birch Copse
Calcot
Westwood
Theale
Burghfield
Mortimer
Thatcham North
Thatcham West
Thatcham Central
Thatcham South & Crookham
Clayhill
Speen
Victoria
Northcroft
Falkland
St Johns
Greenham
Hungerford

Safe Tory seats

Aldermaston
Basildon
Bucklebury
Chieveley
Cold Ash
Compton
Downlands
Kintbury
Lambourn
Pangbourne
Purley
Sulhampstead

I'm not saying it would be easy to win the seats or the council, traditionally the Tories only lose power locally when the Tories are in Government and extremely unpopular. But under the new system, nobody can claim that either the Tories or opposition have any kind of advantage, it's as fair as it ever will be in West Berkshire. Some of the smaller rural seats could be merged too, but then the Tories could claim that we are trying to make it harder for them and easier for us.

I think if there was only 28 wards, the council would be leaner, meaner and in much better shape. We wouldn't have people turning up just to sit and listen. How many of the councillors never speak or do anything for their allowance? In my opinion, it just isn't good value and I would much rather have a stronger, more cost effective council than what we have now.

*28 seats

Quoted from Muddler

Which would guarantee we are run by the Useless Tories forever (see rural vs urban ratios). Why would you want that?

If you redraw the ward boundaries so that each has approximately the same population and  there are as many of them as the number of councillors wanted (eg 25) then the balance of the council would be much the same as, for instance Victoria Ward (LD) in Newbury probabably has much the same population as three rural Tory wards.

The current situation awards multiple seats to high population wards so simply making all current wards have one councillor could be profoundly unfair.

It's not a bad idea, though paradoxically, I don't think it would improve the calibre of councillors. That would need a relegation of party politics.

Quoted from richard.garvie

I don't think it would. I reckon that the following seats are winnable for non Tory parties:

You also reckoned that Labour might get 26 seats at the last local election though.

Based on our data, we could have done. Obviously those who said they would vote for us didn't bother.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Based on our data, we could have done. Obviously those who said they would vote for us didn't bother.

Is that list of wards based on your data too?

Quoted from richard.garvie

Based on our data, we could have done. Obviously those who said they would vote for us didn't bother.

Ah there is the lesson to be learned! Statistics can be made to say whatever you want. The final say is an X against your name!  

Quoted from user23.3

Is that list of wards based on your data too?

No, those are the wards that have traditionally been marginals.

Quoted from Cognosco

Ah there is the lesson to be learned! Statistics can be made to say whatever you want. The final say is an X against your name!  

Absolutely!!!

Quoted from richard.garvie

No, those are the wards that have traditionally been marginals.

Which do you think was the ward to most recently have a Labour district councillor?

Quoted from user23.3

Which do you think was the ward to most recently have a Labour district councillor?

I don't think your petty question matters one iota? Politics is going to have to change drastically by the time the next election comes around. People are so fed up with politicians, financial institutions etc and believe they are no longer fit for purpose! All the local councils need sorting out from top to bottom, they have never really represented the local taxpayer, again not fit for purpose. That is without even looking at the cost for what they actually achieve.