But we should........

I agree, but there's should and there's would.

And those found to be liars (not just 'political with the truth') should be subject to public scrutiny.

I have no-one in mind, but lying is not the same as failing to tell the truth.

Have you heard of lying by omission? OK; if you don't say something, then you are not telling a lie, BUT if you say something and wilfully leave something out that would materially devalue your statement, that is tantamount to a lie. Then of course, there are those statements where the detail is untrue. One meaning of lying is to say something that is untrue.

If a child tells their parent they got an A+ for a piece of work at school, and the parent - proud - tells another person, is the parent lying when the child actually got a D?
If a parent asks a child why they were late home from school and the child says they were doing some extra study when they actually had detention (during which their task was to do some studying) has the child lied?

In the arena Richard aspires to he not only has to confront the art of asking a good question, but he also needs to accept that - if he is successful - he will soon acquire the skills he currently lambasts people for using.

None of his adversaries are obliged to tell him what he wants to know if he fails to ask the right way. It is part of the 'game' whether we like it or not. The way that game is played out actually excludes many from the debate, enabling the truth economists to thrive.

I remember (didn't see) a film about someone who could not tell the truth even if it was painless. I'd like to see one where someone couldn't lie. The Peter Sellars film Being There comes close.

It's a comedy, but Liar Liar is onthose lines.

I want everything to be out in the open. Everybody said they wanted it before the general election, and nobody delivered it. If I was elected, and if I did lie like I believe has happened recently at West Berks, I'd expect to be asked to resign. That's how it should be. I've never dreamed of a political career, I am simply doing what I am doing because I am fed up with the way things are done at West Berks. I can't change it by talking to elected members, because they weren't interested in talking to me before I got involved. The officers wouldn't talk to me either. So the only way left to change it is by getting elected and forcing the changes in working practices myself.

I would never have got involved in politics had my local member at the time bothered to speak to me and raise my concerns that I wanted to be heard!!! (those are the members for Speen if you're interested)

Of course both are lies. That is clear.


I think it is unfair to criticise something that doesn't yet exists. The time for criticising Richard Garvie for doing so, is when he is doing so.


When the council proposed changing the system, they could have advised the interested parties that there would be a certain amount of disruption. They could have considered another month to perform the transition other than the busiest month on the high-street.

The leak about the failing system WASN'T of Richard Garvies making, although as a political activist, he is seeking to make political capital. The story first broke after some establishment's owners complained of a system failure before Christmas. What surprises me is that no Newbury councillor seems to have taken the issue and checked the veracity of the claims made by WBC or Richard Garvie. There are rumours, for instance, that the zoom quality isn't as good as it should be.

That seems to be the difference between those of your style and those of an alternative methodology.

I have never had a problem getting an answer to what I ask, when I am accurate with my question/supplementary. When I am inaccurate I realise the match score has gone against me for the moment.

You lied on this very board about a referendum for mayor not costing a penny extra to the taxpayer, in order to win you more signatures. In truth the whole paraphernalia for a separate ballot would cost tens of thousands of pounds.

David Cameron, 3 days before the election -"any cabinet minister … who comes to me and says 'Here are my plans' and they involve frontline reductions, they'll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again". Now £81bn in cuts now to frontline services.

Would VAT rise? A month before the election, Cameron said: "Our plans involve cutting wasteful spending … our plans don't involve an increase in VAT."

Two months before the election, David Cameron "I wouldn't change child benefit, I wouldn't means test it, I don't think that's a good idea."

On education maintenance allowances, Michael Gove said, just before the election: "Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping EMA. I have never said this. We won't."

On tax credits, the promise was to cut them only for families on £50,000, but the budget book shows families with an income of just £30,000 lose all credits.

Liam Fox promised "a bigger army for a safer Britain", but it now loses 7,000 soldiers.

Do we consider the above statements lies, white lies, omissions, mistakes, politicing, bending the truth?

Like I said: if politicians told the truth, they wouldn't get votes.

The whole issue surrounding CCTV is that they had the opportunity to advise traders and groups there may be a few issues before Christmas but chose to mislead them. Surely it would have been easier in hindsight to tell the truth?

And as I said on the mayor thread, the council could have had a proper consulatation, and if there was demand for a referendum, they could have held it with the locals to save money. Cost cannot be used as a barrier for a mayor referendum when the council intentionally bodged a consultation on the leadership model.

You are avoiding the point, but to be fair to you, you are not being paid by the tax payer for an answer.

The cost of the referendum would be very little if it was held with other elections. If we should factor in costs for referendums, why on earth are we having the AV vote?

I take users point that there will be a cost, when initially I thought there would be little or no cost as I believed we could still hold it with the locals. I've already accepted that mistake on another thread.

Indeed, the science of hindsight.
I rather suspect the CCTV plan was light on project plan/critical path and lacked sufficient allowance for over-run or failure by external suppliers etc. The original Gantt Plan would be worth seeing.

Happy to be wrong, and I have no evidence. I am much more minded there is Officer error than Member fault, but I also suspect (hope) lessons have been learned.

While failure is not an option, planning high risk methods for routine activities makes for problems.

But you said it wouldn't cost a penny, when it would cost tens of thousands to print the ballot papers whenever the election might be held.

You lied and are trying to blame it on someone else; will you resign from your position in the Labour Party?

Would not cost very much if it was done on line. The Council was keen to defranchise many voters with its budget simulator, why not a referendum?

It's a good point but I suspect there'd actually much greater cost in doing it online.

Could lead to the famed Irish mantra - Vote early, Vote often.