Elected Mayor Petition Options

[Richard Garvie]

I just wanted to ask if any of those who support the mayor system would like to help with a petition? This is not a party political petition, as far as I know two other political parties have requested information about forcing a referendum. Hundreds of people have already signed up, and the target date for submission is early February. I am personally planning to do Hungerford this Saturday with some colleagues, and Newbury on Friday and Saturday evening. There will be people in Newbury on Saturday daytime too.

The purpose of this petition is not because it's neccessarily my view or anyone in the Labour Party locally. We have decided to carry out this petition after the current administration refused to carry out a proper consultation on the leadership models available to the council. In correspondance with the leader of the council, I requested that the leadership decision be delayed so that a proper consultation could be carried out. I was told to "include it in my manifesto if it is something I care about". This shouldn't be about what I think, or what Graham Jones believes. There is a lot of support for the mayor option and it's only right that the general public should be allowed to have their views heard.

I would like to think all parties will be supportive of staging this referendum, especially the Lib Dems who are supposedly all for proportional representation. An elected mayor system would mean that the leader of the council would be elected by a large percentage of the district rather than 800 votes in one ward. The directly elected leader would also be accountable for when things go wrong, unlike at present when nobody seems to be accountable. Do you think Graham Jones would have closed the Ormonde Centre and Hillcroft House if he was accountable to the whole district? No, I don't think so either.

If you are available to assist with the petition, my mobile number is 07593 278690 or you can email richard.garvie@googlemail.com

[Richard Garvie]

Talking of changing the subject, you never answered my question, nor did you even attempt it.

Are you suggesting that the leadership model used should favour a political party?

[user23]

This is what I said, and I have highlighted the answer you wanted. Unfortunately, I am not the leader of the party. As for changing the subject, what is the topic of this thread? Start a new one about the local elections and I'll happily take part.

Right, so if you don't win any seats it's all down to the leader and has nothing to do with you.

Hardly very accountable, are you?

You're rubbish at this Richard.

[Richard Garvie]

Right, so if you don't win any seats it's all down to the leader and has nothing to do with you.

Hardly very accountable, are you?

You're rubbish at this Richard.

What makes me accountable if I'm not leading the party?

And why do you believe that the leadership option should favour the conservatives?

[user23]

What makes me accountable if I'm not leading the party?

Only the leader of a party should be accountable?

[Richard Garvie]

Not at all. But as a candidate to the electorate, if they don't elect me I am already accountable.

Why do you believe the leadership model should favour one political party?

[user23]

Not at all. But as a candidate to the electorate, if they don't elect me I am already accountable.

Have you been relieved of your community role for Newbury Labour party?

[Richard Garvie]

Not at all. If the party aren't happy with what I do after the election, the members have every right to deselect me from that role.

[user23]

Not at all. If the party aren't happy with what I do after the election, the members have every right to deselect me from that role. If I feel I've not done a good job, I'll happily step down.

What would constitute not doing a very good job?

Perhaps not winning any seats after claiming you've win at least two.

[Richard Garvie]

What would constitute not doing a very good job?

Perhaps not winning any seats after claiming you've win at least two.

I'm confident we will win a lot more than two. I'd say anything less than what we got last time is a failure.

[user23]

I'm confident we will win a lot more than two. I'd say anything less than what we got last time is a failure.

Seeing as you won zero seats last time it might be hard to get less than last time, this time.

Given your prediction of "a lot more than two", I'd say anything less than three is a failure, wouldn't you admit?

[Richard Garvie]

Depends where you are sitting. The Labour Party will consider our success or failure on the vote share we get. So as you say, will be hard to get less than we did last time!!!

[Cognosco]

Typical User23 distorting the facts. It isn't another level, the only difference is that people will elect their ward councillors and also vote on who should be the leader of the council. This is in contrast to a political party nominating one of their own. So the mayor system is more proportional (something the Lib Dems claim to want) and there is more accountability. The coalition government want more elected mayors, Cameron said in Swindon recently that the elected mayor model should be adopted by cities, towns and unitaries. So why the objections from Graham Jones and his mates? Is it because he would have to step down as part time leader or leave his business???

Once again, we have to go along with what the leader of the Conservative Party in West Berkshire wants, not what the public ask for. That's how democracy works here at the moment, and that's why it needs to change.

PS. Like everyone else, I didn't even know about the consultation. You would think political parties would have recieved notification, wouldn't you?

QUOTE (user23 @ Jan 9 2011, 02:23 PM) *
No prizes for guessing who'll be the first to put his name up for mayor.

Typical Labour, trying to introduce a new level of bureaucracy.Why haven't you taken part in any consultations?

Have you joined the Community Panel?

I have never even heard of the Community Panel!!

Several times now I have read on the forum of consultations on different items and it is the first I have heard of them. They are obviously well advertised then? Still like I have stated perhaps it is because the council only consults the people who they know will give the answers they require!!!

[user23]

QUOTE (user23 @ Jan 9 2011, 02:23 PM) *
No prizes for guessing who'll be the first to put his name up for mayor.

Typical Labour, trying to introduce a new level of bureaucracy.Why haven't you taken part in any consultations?

Have you joined the Community Panel?

I have never even heard of the Community Panel!!

Several times now I have read on the forum of consultations on different items and it is the first I have heard of them. They are obviously well advertised then? Still like I have stated perhaps it is because the council only consults the people who they know will give the answers they require!!!

If you don't join in how can they get your views?

Go to their website and take a look.

[dannyboy]

Talking of changing the subject, you never answered my question, nor did you even attempt it.

You never answered mine either.

[Richard Garvie]

Electing a mayor would ensure more transparency and more accountability. Once again, any cost implications must lay at the door of Cllr Graham Jones, who with his party fudged the consultation on the leadership options. If the consultation had been open and honest, and the council went with Strong Leader, there would be no argument. The fact is they railroaded through what they wanted, reegardless of public opinion.

A Mayor leadership option would not favour any one political party. The reason for doing it is to improve democracy, and is something all political parties should be looking to achive regardless of what model is used.

I did Dannyboy, I've highlighted the text above. The cost of the mayoral election is a result of the council choosing to fudge the consultation. Had they consulted on the mayor option properly, it may have been ruled out anyway. If it had been adopted, the election would have taken place at the same time as the locals, meaning there would be little to no extra cost at all.

[user23]

I did Dannyboy, I've highlighted the text above. The cost of the mayoral election is a result of the council choosing to fudge the consultation. Had they consulted on the mayor option properly, it may have been ruled out anyway. If it had been adopted, the election would have taken place at the same time as the locals, meaning there would be little to no extra cost at all.

Doesn't make much sense that as a consultation is different to a referendum.

How much will a referendum cost taxpayers is the real question.

[dannyboy]

I did Dannyboy, I've highlighted the text above. The cost of the mayoral election is a result of the council choosing to fudge the consultation. Had they consulted on the mayor option properly, it may have been ruled out anyway. If it had been adopted, the election would have taken place at the same time as the locals, meaning there would be little to no extra cost at all.

Not that one.

And you really think wasting money on a Mayorial election will put an end to lurching from one crisis to another?

[Richard Garvie]

Doesn't make much sense that as a consultation is different to a referendum.

How much will a referendum cost taxpayers is the real question.

Had it been a fair consultation, there would be no need for a referendum.

[Richard Garvie]

Not that one.

And you really think wasting money on a Mayorial election will put an end to lurching from one crisis to another?

With the mayor being accountable directly to every individual in West Berkshire, I believe so. It needn't have cost anything, but Graham Jones imposed his personal opinion on everyone.

[Cognosco]

If you don't join in how can they get your views?

Go to their website and take a look.

Your poor Gran cannot take part in this either then User?

Thanks for the tip on the Community Panel I will have a browse.