Details of the Chief Exceutive's (Nick Carter) expenses for the last 3 years are available on http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ceo_expenses_14#incoming-189285 for download.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com facilitates Freedom of Information Act requests and publishes the results which make very interesting reading.

Surprisingly, Nick Carter’s expenses show that he lives 35 miles from Newbury. He claimed a round trip of home to Newbury to home on 29/01/2011 of 70 miles.

Nick Carter obviously does not have to live with the decisions made by West Berkshire Council which affect us all.  No wonder he seems to me to be so distant from it all!

Living so far away there is also the question of what happens in any civil emergency or problem affecting West Berkshire.  He will not be able to get to Newbury promptly to deal with this and if we get heavy snow like the last couple of years he will be going nowhere.

I also wonder why he gets paid mileage allowance for home to office in addition to his huge salary. Normal businesses do not pay this.

Pretty shocking that he is paid his travel costs.

Quoted from 26

Pretty shocking that he is paid his travel costs.

What you want him to run West Berkshire into the ground with all the cuts needed and not gain from it?  

You will want the Financial Sector and Bankers to pay for the errors of their ways next I suppose?  

How dare you besmirch the good name of our £159,000 a year Supreme Leader.

Cartergrad wasn't built in a day, and he's worked tirelessly to get replace the small family businesses with chainstores. He's given us green meanies instead of naff car parks, an Italian piazza in place of a town square, long-distance CCTV and 4000 more houses.

It's this sort of ungrateful response which rightly gets our leaders so upset. Already, the Supreme Leader's Presidential Guard (formerly 51st Green Meanie Battalion) is mustering outside the Kremlin to quell this latest outburst.

Long Live the Supreme Leader. Death to the Quislings!

Now then Muddler, you're just trying to upset User. I am thinking of starting a User preservation campaign, even though he claims I'm Newbury's Biggest User Wind-Up Merchant.  At least he posts here and he's the closest we have to an official WBC spokesperson on this or any other forum. Now, where did I put that pile of e-petition forms?

Two things leap out here, one is that it is an interesting insight into the public mindedness of the guy that in a time of enforced savings, from the people of Newbury to those who serve them, he still charges a rather pathetic 3 miles for a meeting at the Racecourse.
Please sir, please sir, look sir, I drove 3 miles today sir, please sir, please sir, can I have my 36p sir? Gosh sir, thanks sir, I'll cut along to see Matron and then head for the tuck shop sir. I got an extra 36p to spend, Yarooh!

Thought W.B.C were promoting 'green' and all that good stuff. Couldn't he walk, bike, go by train?

The second thing that leaps out is his visits to the College, one booked at 3 miles, and one booked at 4 miles. only a minor point, but an increase of over 25% nonetheless. Did he get lost? I know he's not from round these parts, but he could buy a map couldn't he?


Threep.

Quoted from Threepwood

. Did he get lost? I know he's not from round these parts, but he could buy a map couldn't he?


Threep.

Only if he could claim it on expenses. I'm with you about the penny pinching claim for a 3 mile trip. Who owns the car he drives by the way, is it a company car.

Quoted from brian

Only if he could claim it on expenses. I'm with you about the penny pinching claim for a 3 mile trip. Who owns the car he drives by the way, is it a company car.

I think it is. The rate for mileage on your own car is around 40p I think. But given that central government are urging senior execs take a 10% pay cut, he really does seem to be at the trough.

12p and 14p a mile is a low settlement; I'd say companies would typically grant around 40p a mile.  For people to complain about someone being paid for what they are entitled, seems petty.  His salary seems high on its own, but it is average for a council CEO, and his council usually does well on audits.

Some clarification to my original post:

Nick Carter has a leased car provided by West Berks Council and the rate of 12/14p per mile is to cover fuel costs.

Looking at his overall mileage I think that he must do about 20,000 miles per year taking into account the 70 mile round trip to the office. Leased cars become very expensive once you go over 10,000 miles per year owing to the huge depreciation that this causes and this affects all makes of car.

It seems to me that council taxpayers are paying for the cost of Nick Carter living 35 miles away from Newbury if the council pays for the full leasing on his car.  The fuel claimed is a very tiny proportion of this cost.

If you draw a circle of 35 miles radius around Newbury you will not find a location that is anywhere near the West Berkshire area.  Possible places 35 miles from Newbury are Guildford, Southampton, Chippenham and Oxford.

My point is that for what Nick Carter is paid he should be living within the West Berkshire Area.  I notice that plenty of people have christened Newbury 'cartergrad' but at the end of the day at 5:00pm Nick Carter is off home to somewhere miles away where the decisions of West Berkshire Council do not have any bearing on him or his family.  He can just shut the door on us.

Quoted from Greenham Common

12p and 14p a mile is a low settlement; I'd say companies would typically grant around 40p a mile.  For people to complain about someone being paid for what they are entitled, seems petty.  His salary seems high on its own, but it is average for a council CEO, and his council usually does well on audits.

This is a more common rate for those that get a company car or car allowance.

Quoted from Greenham Common

For people to complain about someone being paid for what they are entitled, seems petty.

That is very true,  I have no quibble per se with mileage allowances.  However, and maybe it's just me, but if I was on top of 160 grand a year, I'd be embarrassed to be seen claiming for a journey of 1.5 miles there and 1.5 miles back. Of course, the fact that the true distance is only a mile is a topic for another debate or, if he's been that creative with all his distances, then the Fraud Squad.


Threep.

I don't have a problem with any of this.

What I'd be more interested to see is an analysis of the case for and against merging WBC with other district councils, as discussed here before and as advocated by Eric Pickles.  I would imagine that could produce significant savings.

Also, as I've also suggested here, why not reduce the number of councillors?  The PM is setting an example on this, reducing the number of MPs. Inspired by his leader, I'm sure that Mr Jones will at least have thought about the options.  What conclusions did he come to?  I think we should be told.

For clarification, the Supreme Leader lives in Wiltshire and his assistant Councillor Graham Jones lives in Oxfordshire.

We could save £500k a year by getting rid of councillors. Just a Supreme Leader, Chief Architect and Commissar-general for the Green Meanies would suffice.

Hmm, maybe a bit radical all in one go, Muddler.  Do you see the Green Meanies being armed?

Meanwhile, the citizens of West Suffolk have been - shock horror! - allowed to express their own views on mergers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-13518691

The result is a merger of the staffing structures of two district councils

http://www.babergh.gov.uk/babergh/home

And there will be one chief exec, instead of two.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-12804234

They're saving quite a lot as a result, as you'll see.  As I say I'd be interested to know whether this has been looked at in any detail locally and, if so, what conclusions were reached. Personally I'd have no problem with Mr C being the CE of a merged district, but then I'm generally in favour of Parkway (although not, of course, of the Pavilion).

This isn't entirely off-topic - a single CE of two merged districts would only need one car.  

And completely back on topic, shouldn't WBC have some company bicycles its staff could use for short trips around town? Not only would that reduce the council's carbon footprint and, possibly, costs: it also provides the cyclist with an up-close-and-personal look at town which you don't get from inside your Audi.

Ironic that some on here use words like Cartergrad and Supreme Leader in a derogatory manner, implying a soviet style regime that is obviously unwanted, but then come across as expecting certain council members should only live in certain areas without the freedom to choose where to live (I guess pre-approved by the same regime).

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

Ironic that some on here use words like Cartergrad and Supreme Leader in a derogatory manner, implying a soviet style regime that is obviously unwanted, but then come across as expecting certain council members should only live in certain areas without the freedom to choose where to live (I guess pre-approved by the same regime).

Hmm, interesting point.  I think Muddler's joke still works, though.  Supreme leaders in the USSR tended to live in nice dachas in the countryside (when they weren't staying at their luxury villas by the Baltic).  Only the proles were expected to live in appalling Soviet apartment blocks in town.  As it turned out, the proles got a bit fed up with this but I don't suppose Putin and Mevedev slum it or, for that matter, ride around Moscow on bikes.

Given the amount of criticism Nick Carter gets on this forum, some fair, some not, I am not surprised he does not live here.

What's he doing going anywhere. People should be coming to Him.

<<stands with arm across chest and sings>>

Carry on, Our Supreme Leader
Cartergrad will last 1000 years
Your endeavours aren't over yet
No matter what they say on newbury.net

Quoted from NewburyP

Given the amount of criticism Nick Carter gets on this forum, some fair, some not, I am not surprised he does not live here.

I just don't get this. I agree it's odd if councillors don't live here (although to be fair to Councillor Jones, his NHS subsidised business is based here http://goo.gl/qB2Na even though he chooses to live elsewhere) but I don't think a chief exec's effectiveness is anything to do with where he lives.  What's your line of reasoning?

Quoted from NewburyP

Given the amount of criticism Nick Carter gets on this forum, some fair, some not, I am not surprised he does not live here.

True, but here's a thought, if WBC were seen to be run more effectively and efficently, honestly and openly, he might have no problem walking round the town, the only thing he need fear would be replacing his suit jacket because all those slaps on the back for a good job well done would wear through the fabric.

A small price to pay I'm sure for one so devoted to public service.

Whereas, in fact, if WBC were seen to be run more effectively and efficently, honestly and openly, people wouldn't care where he lived. He makes himself a hostage to fortune by not living amongst those affected by his Council's policies and their occasionally bizzare antics.

Instead, if he were to walk around now he might just get a right ear-bending from (nearly) all and sundry.

How about it Mr Carter? How about a weekly 'meet the people' walkabout? Every Thursday, taking in Bart St, Northbrook St, The Market, Kennet Shopping and the Commuters at the Station. I'm sure you'd find it educational.


Threep.


...oh, and if you're worried about missing out on your 36p mileage allowance, because your using shanks' pony, I'll personally reimburse you out of my own pocket. Hell, I'll even throw in a map.

Just a thought, but if we have to pay relocation expenses for any future chief execs perhaps we should stipulate that they're expected to live in West Berks it their move is subsidised.

Quoted from NewburyP

Given the amount of criticism Nick Carter gets on this forum, some fair, some not, I am not surprised he does not live here.

You have obviously not lived here for very long.

Choose the appropriate "D" word for the Carter/Jones regime.

Democracy or Dictatorship?

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

Ironic that some on here use words like Cartergrad and Supreme Leader in a derogatory manner, implying a soviet style regime that is obviously unwanted, but then come across as expecting certain council members should only live in certain areas without the freedom to choose where to live (I guess pre-approved by the same regime).

Nice of you to deconstruct my wee satire, but if it's all the same....you're not very funny, so mind if I don't listen?

Quoted from Muddler

Nice of you to deconstruct my wee satire, but if it's all the same....you're not very funny, so mind if I don't listen?

Of course not, most of what you spout is crap anyway so apart from a dozen on here I doubt many others listen to you either. You obviously have a rather obsessive problem with a certain councillor, but why you don't put yourself up for election and actually do something about what you despise of instead of moaning all the time is beyond me. Oh and for what it's worth, your "satire" is rather stale now, maybe you should find some new words to use, you've been using the Cartergrad "joke" for about 5 years now. A bit like you and how you want to keep Newbury - stuck in the past. Take care old chap.

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

Take care old chap.

Uh oh Muddler, now you're really in trouble.  Double lock the doors and whatever you do don't open them to any Green Meanie Presidential Guards otherwise you might find yourself thrown into one of the cells in the infamous Market Street dungeon, never to be heard of again.

But whatever you do, don't give up - we revolutionaries need all the help we can get in the face of apparatchiks like so called 'comrade' whingewhingewhinge. Long live the PCRLF!! (People's Catergrad Resistance and Liberation Front) Long live freedom!

And on that point, why don't we get referenda on important stuff, like the residents of West Suffolk?   Much better than the unconvincing surveys that WBC pushes out and spins to within an inch of their lives.  I've always been keen on referenda.   Long live freedom! (etc.)

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

Of course not, most of what you spout is crap anyway so apart from a dozen on here I doubt many others listen to you either. You obviously have a rather obsessive problem with a certain councillor, but why you don't put yourself up for election and actually do something about what you despise of instead of moaning all the time is beyond me.

Because the town is full of evil Tories (and closet Tories like the Lib Dems) like yourself!  

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

Of course not, most of what you spout is crap anyway so apart from a dozen on here I doubt many others listen to you either. You obviously have a rather obsessive problem with a certain councillor, but why you don't put yourself up for election and actually do something about what you despise of instead of moaning all the time is beyond me. Oh and for what it's worth, your "satire" is rather stale now, maybe you should find some new words to use, you've been using the Cartergrad "joke" for about 5 years now. A bit like you and how you want to keep Newbury - stuck in the past. Take care old chap.

No we want to go to the future by getting rid of WBC (Cartergrad) and getting a good organisation that take Newbury forward but in the direction that the Council Tax payers wish!

Of course you will be against it, as you either   Work for WBC / have a relationship with someone who works for WBC / Is the first person to not have a bad word to say about WBC/ Are an idiot.

Any combination of the above may apply.

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

Oh and for what it's worth, your "satire" is rather stale now, maybe you should find some new words to use, you've been using the Cartergrad "joke" for about 5 years now. A bit like you and how you want to keep Newbury - stuck in the past. Take care old chap.

Agreed. Cartergrad implies a top-down, centrally planned one-party state that won't tolerate criticism....what was I thinking? I don't want anyone being upset by a little joke.

Anyway, why shouldn't we have a new name while we're at it. Newbury sounds....so...."stuck in the past". Certainly not the 21st century shopping mecca I've been hearing all about.

Peking became Beijing, Saigon became Ho Chi Minh, New Amsterdam became New York, Calleva became Silchester. So you're right, we should update the town name, but where do we start.

Forumistas - what's it to be?

Good thinking Muddler, definitely time for a rebrand.

Vodabury is the obvious choice but it's a bit old hat, so perhaps Vodopalis, Vodaville or Vodechester?

There are huge corporate sponsorship opportunities here so how about Quatelia, Quantelstoke, Bayerville or Bayerington?

I suggest we auction off the naming rights to the highest bidder.  Should be worth a few million: the launch alone would get massive national and international coverage.

If none of that works for you, The Town Formerly Known as Newbury would also hit the headlines while capturing the idea that Newbury really has been reinvented.  

How about Nubury

Quoted from noobree

Good thinking Muddler, definitely time for a rebrand.

I suggest we auction off the naming rights to the highest bidder.  Should be worth a few million: the launch alone would get massive national and international coverage.

  

Standard Life may be interested....Standardbury sounds perfect. And in our new world, where Supreme Leaders don't matter, we'll need a new town anthem.

What about the song from Cheers?

Making your way in the world today takes everything you've got.
Giving the finger to the Green Meanies, sure would help a lot.
Wouldn't you like to get away?
Sometimes you want to go
Where all the shops are the same,
and no one's glad you came.
You wanna be where we've agreed,
that the council never gets the blame
You wanna be where everybody knows
Your name.
You wanna go where people know,
people are all the same,
You wanna go where everybody knows
your name.

New Croydon?

Quoted from Nobby

No we want to go to the future by getting rid of WBC (Cartergrad) and getting a good organisation that take Newbury forward but in the direction that the Council Tax payers wish!

The dozen or so on here seem to think they know what the Council Tax payers want - I don't think you do. If your aims were in line with what "the council tax payers wish" the council tax payers of Newbury/West Berkshire area would have made their views known last May. They didn't. They didn't the 5 years before that either. That tells me *you* want something that generally *most* don't want.

Quoted from Nobby

Of course you will be against it, as you either   Work for WBC / have a relationship with someone who works for WBC / Is the first person to not have a bad word to say about WBC/ Are an idiot.

Ah the usual chestnut, someone disagrees with us therefore he/she MUST have some involvement with WBC.

Quoted from Muddler

Anyway, why shouldn't we have a new name while we're at it. Newbury sounds....so...."stuck in the past". Certainly not the 21st century shopping mecca I've been hearing all about.

Ah, you WANT the parkway shopping centre then. Good. Glad you've admitted that. I guess all the bitching on here about it was in my imagination then.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Because the town is full of evil Tories (and closet Tories like the Lib Dems) like yourself!  

That's an amazing (and wrong) deduction! Nothing like leaping to conclusions.   Anyway what's evil about the Newbury Tories, they've done a darn site more good than the useless lib-dems did, and are there any other local parties who've run Newbury/WBC? Labour? bwahahahah.

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

The dozen or so on here seem to think they know what the Council Tax payers want - I don't think you do. If your aims were in line with what "the council tax payers wish" the council tax payers of Newbury/West Berkshire area would have made their views known last May. They didn't. They didn't the 5 years before that either.

What has voting got to do with it. The Tories gave the impression in opposition that they were against the "vision", but when in power did nothing. There isn't a fab paper between the two parties locally. Other than writing on their ballot papers "they are all tossers", I fail to see how anyone against the overdevelopment could make their views known on election day.

Quoted from 26

What has voting got to do with it.

Did you seriously just ask what has voting got to do with public opinion?

There were five parties and a few independents standing at the last elections, not two. In addition anyone else who was against the modernisation of the town could have stood for election too. That's how "anyone against the overdevelopment could make their views known on election day".

Two say there were only two parties in contention does the efforts of Richard Garvie, Charlie Farrow and BrianB a disservice.

Most people who live in Newbury can't wait for the new developments.  It is only old grumpy former Tory/Lib Dem voters like me who don't like it.  The current Lib Dems just flip-flop to whatever sounds popular.  Labour just promise to be brilliant, secure in the knowledge Newbury voters will never test their integrity.

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

The dozen or so on here seem to think they know what the Council Tax payers want - I don't think you do. If your aims were in line with what "the council tax payers wish" the council tax payers of Newbury/West Berkshire area would have made their views known last May. They didn't. They didn't the 5 years before that either. That tells me *you* want something that generally *most* don't want.

No because the difference between the main options was so minuscule.  The majority don't voice their opinions in public and also don't vote as they presumably feel that it is all the same, or WBC employees will do as they wish and not inform the councillors of all the options.

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

Ah the usual chestnut, someone disagrees with us therefore he/she MUST have some involvement with WBC.

I see you are unable to pick from a list of 4 options!

Quoted from user23.3

Did you seriously just ask what has voting got to do with public .

No. Read again with your troll head disengaged.

Quoted from 26

No. Read again with your troll head disengaged.

It was a rhetorical question. You did.

You also said "I fail to see how anyone against the overdevelopment could make their views known on election day." I explained how they could and that your talk of "the two parties" effectively puts two fingers up to the efforts of the other three parties and the independents such as our host BrianB.

Hope this makes things a bit clearer for you and perhaps there's a small chance you might not spend the next three and a half years moaning that your opinion matters so much more than the tens of thousands of voters in West Berkshire.

Quoted from user23.3

It was a rhetorical question. You did.

.

No I didn't. I pointed out that the fact that the Tories won the local election did not mean that voters voted for the "vision" as whingewhingewhinge had suggested. In fact a vote for either of the two main parties in West Berks is a vote for the "vision" as one party started it and the other carried it on.

You, as usual acted in your trolling way and tried to use my narrow point on the local election to imply some wider meaning. Obviously you couldn't argue with my point, so as is your wont, you misinterpreted it so that you COULD argue against an imagined point. Predictable.

Quoted from whingewhingewhinge

the council tax payers of Newbury/West Berkshire area would have made their views known last May. They didn't.

There are only two things I really care about, so far as WBC is concerned, at present

1. Has WBC looked at the costs and benefits of merging with other authorities to reduce costs?  If so, please could we see the results of the analysis.  If not why not?  

2. Are those in control of the council still intent on building an arts pavilion in Victoria Park?

Could someone remind me whether either of the two main parties included promises to look at mergers and prevent building in the park before the council elections.

Quoted from 26

No I didn't. I pointed out that the fact that the Tories won the local election did not mean that voters voted for the "vision" as whingewhingewhinge had suggested. In fact a vote for either of the two main parties in West Berks is a vote for the "vision" as one party started it and the other carried it on.

You, as usual acted in your trolling way and tried to use my narrow point on the local election to imply some wider meaning. Obviously you couldn't argue with my point, so as is your wont, you misinterpreted it so that you COULD argue against an imagined point. Predictable.

If "a vote for either of the two main parties in West Berks is a vote for the vision" then people in West Berkshire must generally be in support of the "vision" or they wouldn't have voted for "the two main parties", would they.

Quoted from user23.3

If "a vote for either of the two main parties in West Berks is a vote for the vision" then people in West Berkshire must generally be in support of the "vision" or they wouldn't have voted for "the two main parties", would they.

Well to take your daft logic to it's conclusion, the 50 odd percent that didn't vote and all those that voted for a party other than the main two voted against the "vision". You don't need someone to argue with, you lose against yourself.  

Quoted from 26

Well to take your daft logic to it's conclusion, the 50 odd percent that didn't vote and all those that voted for a party other than the main two voted against the "vision". You don't need someone to argue with, you lose against yourself.  

The 50 odd percent that didn't vote didn't express an opinion, the 50 odd percent that did vote, did express an opinion. There's the difference.

We do know to a large extent what those who voted think by how they cast their votes, however we don't know why those that didn't vote, didn't.

They could have been on holiday, forgotten to vote, didn't like any of the candidates in their ward but couldn't be bothered to stand themselves, in fact there could be any number of reasons why people didn't vote. It is "daft logic" to assume people didn't vote for one just reason as you have done.

Quoted from user23.3

If "a vote for either of the two main parties in West Berks is a vote for the vision" then people in West Berkshire must generally be in support of the "vision" or they wouldn't have voted for "the two main parties", would they.

Using Users usual logic, if you are asked "which you would prefer TB or Smallpox" whichever way you answer you obviously have no wish to be healthy!!

Unfortunately he and the politicians just wont understand, or choose not too.

When I proposed scrapping free parking for council staff, I seem to recall the excuse being given to me that many employees come from Wiltshire and Hampshire. My response was tough luck, do employees in the shops / call centres in town get free parking?

Mr Carter travels from Wiltshire if I remember correctly, I certainly will not have a go at him for not living in the district. But travelling expenses? When he earns what he does? I personally think that is a step too far.

Quoted from user23.3

If "a vote for either of the two main parties in West Berks is a vote for the vision" then people in West Berkshire must generally be in support of the "vision" or they wouldn't have voted for "the two main parties", would they.

Of course there was a time when a vote for the Tories was a vote against the Vision as they campaigned against the wasteful Lib Dems for coming up with such a selection of daft ideas.  As soon as they got into power they had a quick review and were suddenly in favour of the vision - quite embarassed Richard Benyon IIRC.

Quoted from blackdog

Of course there was a time when a vote for the Tories was a vote against the Vision as they campaigned against the wasteful Lib Dems for coming up with such a selection of daft ideas.  As soon as they got into power they had a quick review and were suddenly in favour of the vision - quite embarassed Richard Benyon IIRC.

That is how I remember the CONservatives.

Quoted from user23.3

The 50 odd percent that didn't vote didn't express an opinion, the 50 odd percent that did vote, did express an opinion. There's the difference.

We do know to a large extent what those who voted think by how they cast their votes, however we don't know why those that didn't vote, didn't.

They could have been on holiday, forgotten to vote, didn't like any of the candidates in their ward but couldn't be bothered to stand themselves, in fact there could be any number of reasons why people didn't vote. It is "daft logic" to assume people didn't vote for one just reason as you have done.

Yawn.

Quoted from 26

In fact a vote for either of the two main parties in West Berks is a vote for the "vision" as one party started it and the other carried it on.

The problem is that you're arguing over a false premise.  A vote for either of the two main parties doesn't imply support for the vision. If it did the council wouldn't have to carry out surveys about the vision.

Voters might well be against the vision but decide not to sacrifice their vote because other aspects of council activity are more important to them or because they feel a duty to vote. Or simply because they have a tribal loyalty to a party and they'd vote for it even if it put up tubs of lard to stand for election and wrote its manifesto in Klingon.

Because both parties support the Vision, voters can't differentiate between them on that basis. So they base their decision on their policies in other areas - education, law and order, transport, housing, libraries, administrative efficiency, and so on.  I would imagine that although people may have strong feelings about the vision, policies in these other areas are more important.

Even if the main parties didn't have the same policy on the vision, it's possible that someone might vote for a party whose stance on the vision was diametrically opposed to their own because that party had policies in other areas which were more important to them.

Another factor to consider is that its possible to be in favour of some parts of the vision but not others.  For example, I support Parkway - which is obviously by far the largest chunk of the vision - but am dead set against the dreaded Pavilion and the further despoilation of Victoria Park.

Just thought I'd mention it otherwise this might go on for some time.  Where were we?  

Quoted from noobree

The problem is that you're arguing over a false premise.  A vote for either of the two main parties doesn't imply support for the vision. If it did the council wouldn't have to carry out surveys about the vision.

I agree, but I was making the point that no matter who I chose to vote for in the last election, I couldn't vote against the "vision" without it being a wasted vote.

Quoted from 26

Yawn.

What's wrong with all these arguments is that parties and/or candidates don't stand for one policy or reason. Taking the vision as the main reason for every politician is a very blinkered view. Without a specific poll on the Vision it is inpossible for anyone to state the number for and against it.

Quoted from 26

I agree, but I was making the point that no matter who I chose to vote for in the last election, I couldn't vote against the "vision" without it being a wasted vote.

I thought you probably were. Onwards etc.

Looking through Nick Carter's expense claims, there are some peculiar mileages and  inconsistencies.

Someone has already noted that he claimed 3 miles for a visit to Newbury Racecourse from  his Market Street office on 21st May when the actual return distance is about 2 miles.

It has also been pointed out that he claimed 4 miles to Newbury College on the 8th March  and 3 miles to the same destination on the 9th of April.  Both these mileages look on the  high side.

Further investigation shows that on the 21st July he claimed 69 miles to Kidlington for a  Thames Valley Police meeting.  On the 23rd June he claimed 55 miles for a Thames Valley  Police meeting in Kidlington. Inconsistent and 69 miles seems too high.

Calcot near Theale is claimed as 22 miles from Newbury (28th June) and Compton is claimed  as 14 miles from Newbury (2nd July).  Swallowfield is claimed as 26 miles away (15th June).  In my opinion these distances seem to be somewhat high.

On 29th April Nick Carter went to Donnington in Newbury and claimed an eye watering 53  miles for this journey. I have trouble understanding which way he went, but I suppose as he  lives near Chippenham in Wiltshire he does not know the area too well and gets lost easily.

There are also the home to office claims that he makes. There is no way a CEO on £158,000  pa should be charging this.  Can you imagine the CEO of Vodafone charging mileage from home  because he has had to come in on a Saturday or Sunday?  I wonder if Nick Carter claims  overtime at time and a half and Sunday working at double time to inflate that huge salary of his. Maybe he gets time off in lieu as well!

HM Revenue and Customs regard travelling expenses from home to a permanent place of work as  income so I hope that Nick Carter is declaring it on his tax return.

There has been a large amount of cost cutting within West Berkshire Council, yet it does  not seem to have affected the top echelons. Surely time for some investigation on this -  one for the Newbury Weekly News?

Quoted from 26

I agree, but I was making the point that no matter who I chose to vote for in the last election, I couldn't vote against the "vision" without it being a wasted vote.

Why was a vote for Labour or BrianB a "wasted vote"?

Quoted from user23.3

Why was a vote for Labour or BrianB a "wasted vote"?

Why do you ask? You have already made it clear that anyone that didn't vote for the two main parties were against the "vision" so your question is merely academic? In any case, which ward did BrianB stand in?

Quoted from Villager

Looking through Nick Carter's expense claims, there are some peculiar mileages and  inconsistencies.

Someone has already noted that he claimed 3 miles for a visit to Newbury Racecourse from  his Market Street office on 21st May when the actual return distance is about 2 miles.

It has also been pointed out that he claimed 4 miles to Newbury College on the 8th March  and 3 miles to the same destination on the 9th of April.  Both these mileages look on the  high side.

Further investigation shows that on the 21st July he claimed 69 miles to Kidlington for a  Thames Valley Police meeting.  On the 23rd June he claimed 55 miles for a Thames Valley  Police meeting in Kidlington. Inconsistent and 69 miles seems too high.

.......

Looks as though he applies the same honesty and integrity to his expenses as he does to his reports to the media and tax payers!

Maybe Private Eye will catch up with him!

Quoted from Nobby

Looks as though he applies the same honesty and integrity to his expenses as he does to his reports to the media and tax payers!

Maybe Private Eye will catch up with him!

Nah! He is protected and I don't mean just by User!  

Quoted from 26

Why do you ask? You have already made it clear that anyone that didn't vote for the two main parties were against the "vision" so your question is merely academic? In any case, which ward did BrianB stand in?

All questions on here are academic.

I was just asking why you thought voting for Labour, the Apolitical Democrats, UKIP or independents like Brian was wasting your vote?

Quoted from user23.3

All questions on here are academic.

I was just asking why you thought voting for Labour, the Apolitical Democrats, UKIP or independents like Brian was wasting your vote?

You didn't tell me which ward Brian stood in.

Quoted from 26

You didn't tell me which ward Brian stood in.

Does it matter?

Why do you think anyone who voted for him (or the parties I mentioned) wasted their vote?

Quoted from user23.3

Does it matter?

Why do you think anyone who voted for him (or the parties I mentioned) wasted their vote?

People didn't waste their vote.  People from any party other than Tory or Lib Dems wasted their time standing.

Quoted from user23.3

Does it matter?

Why do you think anyone who voted for him (or the parties I mentioned) wasted their vote?

Quoted from Greenham Common

People didn't waste their vote.  People from any party other than Tory or Lib Dems wasted their time standing.

Can't you see this is users brave attempt to cover his bosses expenses "scandal".

Well done User brown noses all round!

Quoted from Nobby

Can't you see this is users brave attempt to cover his bosses expenses "scandal".

Which is why I won't answer his irrelevant question. I'm still looking forward to hearing which ward BrianB stood in. User clearly thinks I could have voted for him.

Quoted from user23.3

If "a vote for either of the two main parties in West Berks is a vote for the vision" then people in West Berkshire must generally be in support of the "vision" or they wouldn't have voted for "the two main parties", would they.

As you well know voters do not agree with all the proposals that are presented by each party even thought they vote for that party. As you well know tactical voting has become a major issue with the electorate.
There were figures once produced that purported to prove that most voters opted to choose a party purely for the reason that they were in actual fact the lesser of the evils not because they supported what they stood for.

Of course there is the way that policies are presented as well? If you were asked in a questionaire would you like the Pavillion built in the Wharf or would you prefer it built in Victoria Park please tick the box the appropriate box? Then you are not given the option of I do not want a Pavillion! I wonder what the results would be if all the ballot papers contained, as well as the usual X for opting for one or other of the standing parties, a box to tick or not that listed all the items in a parties manifesto for you to select whether you agreed with this or not and to make it mandatory only to continue with the policy if the majority of voters opted for this selection?

I would think it would show what you call  "Approval"  for your "Vision" would in actual fact turn out to be a case of "Acute Blindness"

Anyway User don't let the facts or the truth stand in the way of your faith of the Supreme Leader - "Keep the Faith"  

Quoted from 26

Which is why I won't answer his irrelevant question. I'm still looking forward to hearing which ward BrianB stood in. User clearly thinks I could have voted for him.

You won't answer it because I suspect you can't support what you say.

Why was voting for Labour, the Apolitical Democrats, UKIP or independents like Brian wasting your vote?

Every ward in Newbury had a choice of some of these, so if you're trying to wriggle out supporting your statement by saying that you couldn't have voted for all of them, please don't.

Quoted from user23.3

You won't answer it because I suspect you can't support what you say.

Why was voting for Labour, the Apolitical Democrats, UKIP or independents like Brian wasting your vote?

Every ward in Newbury had a choice of some of these, so if you're trying to wriggle out supporting your statement by saying that you couldn't have voted for all of them, please don't.

Which ward did brianb stand in? Oh, sorry, now it is independants "like" Brian? I'm not wriggling out of anything. I just refuse to engage with a brown nose whose family makes so much money out of local tax payers that he feels the need to come on here and rubbish the genuine concerns of people that actually live here.

Quoted from 26

Which ward did brianb stand in? Oh, sorry, now it is independants "like" Brian? I'm not wriggling out of anything. I just refuse to engage with a brown nose whose family makes so much money out of local tax payers that he feels the need to come on here and rubbish the genuine concerns of people that actually live here.

I find it disappointing you can't support what you say and have to resort to abuse including references to my family and general name calling.

Nice guy you ain't, Eddie. This is a new low for this forum.

Quoted from user23.3

I find it disappointing you can't support what you say and have to resort to abuse including references to my family and general name calling.

Nice guy you ain't, Eddie. This is a new low for this forum.

Yawn.

Quoted from user23.3

I find it disappointing you can't support what you say and have to resort to abuse including references to my family and general name calling.

Nice guy you ain't, Eddie. This is a new low for this forum.

Still way above the lows of User 23 and his expense fiddling colleagues!