Liberal Democrats retain control of Newbury Town Council Options

[user23]

Which is contrary to Labour's manifesto, and all the other turn coats in your party.

And the way Labour elect their leader.

[Andy Capp]

And the way Labour elect their leader.

And the Tories. Lying Bs.

[Richard Garvie]

Which is contrary to Labour's manifesto, and all the other turn coats in your party.

My understanding is that Labour proposed a referendum on AV? Personally, I don't think AV was any better than what we have now, in fact it was possibly worse. Just because it a referendum was proposed by the national party, it doesn't mean all of the Labour members would have to vote for it. How many Lib Dem members and MP's voted no? I'm sure there were some!!!

[Richard Garvie]

And the way Labour elect their leader.

As I said last year, the fact we used AV to elect our leader was a bad decision. We now have Ed instead of David!!!

[Andy Capp]

My understanding is that Labour proposed a referendum on AV? Personally, I don't think AV was any better than what we have now, in fact it was possibly worse.

Why is AV worse?

[Andy Capp]

As I said last year, the fact we used AV to elect our leader was a bad decision. We now have Ed instead of David!!!

Who wrote Labour's last manifesto (before you had to elect your leader and presumably a manifesto your 'preferred' leader subscribed to)? And you are their rep in Newbury, yet you dis your 'leader'. That'll work. Thank the Lord Labour have nothing to do with Newbury. Look what they did to Reading town centre; well your mates the Tories and Lib Dems are on the way to doing the same here.

[NWNREADER]

Hold hard, chaps.....
I'm not exactly a defender of RG but surely it is better that the members of a political party demonstrate a breadth of thinking rather than meekly toeing the line? The members form the policy, not the party directs the members.
In any case, as AV has been given the heave-ho it is reasonable that the (up to now) obedient lines become more open.

[Andy Capp]

I quite agree, but when you pin your flag to a party, you are essentially signing up. As for AV, yes, people didn't want it, but I have yet to hear one intellectually sensible reason why it isn't a good idea, or not better than FPTP.

I think RG means well, but he is politicly clumsy and ambiguous. Allowing a photo to be taken 'playing' with the opposition does not look good; it's flippant. I wonder what people who voted for him thought when weeks earlier he was knocking him for 'putting the elderly out on the street'. RG needs to wise up if he is to be a serious opposition.

PS - he is also a breath of fresh air, as despite what I have said above, he is miles more evocative than the lame Lib Dems.

[Simon Kirby]

As I said last year, the fact we used AV to elect our leader was a bad decision. We now have Ed instead of David!!!

You think David Milliband would have been any better? He's prettier than his brother, but no more substantial? Ed Balls would have made Labour a genuine, credible, substantial alternative to the Tories, and that's our loss, not yours.

[Simon Kirby]

PS - he is also a breath of fresh air, as despite what I have said above, he is miles more evocative than the lame Lib Dems.

Indeed. The Limp Demerols did rather well in Newbury considering the caning they got nationally, but they've sold out whatever principles they might have had and and it's impossible to take them seriously. WBC needs the balance of an effective opposition and the grandstanding handbags-at-dawn that we've had is hopeless - even RG was a more affective opposition from the sidelines.

[Richard Garvie]

Andy, all I am saying is that AV appears to me to be less fair. I think I would still choose FPTP over the other options that are out there too, it's just my preference and I believe it's fairer. I can see why some people want AV, and why some people want PR, but it's just not for me.

As for nailing my flag to the party, I'm Labour because they best represent me and my political beliefs. Coming from a poor family, in a town that was left to rot in the 80's and 90's under a Tory council and Government, I've seen how that town transformed under Labour. But does that mean I agree with everything Labour has done prior to me joining nationally or in Reading? Does it mean I agree with everything they are doing now? No it doesn't. I wouldn't say that I am dissing Ed, but the evidence would suggest Labour need to do a lot more to win over sceptical voters on National issues. We didn't really lose that many voters in Scotland, we just didn't win the votes lost by the Lib Dems, and those votes are essential if we are to take power at the next general election.

Simon: Ed Balls is a good person for the Labour Party to have in the shadow cabinet, but as a PM? I think DM was the man out of the five because he had a very credible plan to lead the party and also to revitalise the grassroots. Ed M has talked about winning in the south, but what has he done thus far to achieve it? There is a lot more work to do before we can go back to Government, but locally, that shouldn't stop Labour from becoming the credible alternative to the Tories on local issues.

West Berkshire has been stale for a long time, and what I want to do with our branch of the Labour Party is to actually represent what the people here want, rather than what is demanded by a select few people.

[Andy Capp]

Andy, all I am saying is that AV appears to me to be less fair. I think I would still choose FPTP over the other options that are out there too, it's just my preference and I believe it's fairer. I can see why some people want AV, and why some people want PR, but it's just not for me.

Why in your view is it less fair? For me FPTP is appropriate in a two horse race, but simply doesn't suit a three or more, horse race.

As for nailing my flag to the party, I'm Labour because they best represent me and my political beliefs.

Trying to build a Labour party in West Berks will simply help cement a Tory administration.

[Simon Kirby]

Trying to build a Labour party in West Berks will simply help cement a Tory administration.

I don't have any great idological problem with a tory administration, the problem at WBC is that there is no effective opposition. The Lib Dems can't do it, so maybe Labour might get their chance. They didn't win any seats, but with getting on 10% of the vote RG has created a credible platform to speak from. Whether he can build an effective party around that is all to play for.

[blackdog]

Trying to build a Labour party in West Berks will simply help cement a Tory administration.

Yes, that's the problem with First Past The Post.

However, as a Tory administration is pretty much the same as a Lib Dem administration perhaps it's worth a few years of Tory rule while Labour have a go at replacing the LDs.

[Richard Garvie]

Why in your view is it less fair? For me FPTP is appropriate in a two horse race, but simply doesn't suit a three or more, horse race.

In Newbury, I wouldn't mind AV in terms of helping Labour. It's no more representative, proportionate that FPTP, you don't need 50% to elect an MP, it's no easier to recall an MP. What are the benefits of AV? Also, 79 and 97 would have returned even bigger majorities than what they actually did, so I'd even say that AV is slightly unstable.

Trying to build a Labour party in West Berks will simply help cement a Tory administration.

Newbury / West Berkshire cannot sustain three parties. That is clear now. I would rather it was a Labour and Tory marginal, and I'm not going to just give up just because I might unintentionally help the tories in certain wards. If the two party system was working here, I would never have got involved in the first place. My own personal goal is to hold the administration to account, whether we have seats or not.

[Criddleback]

As I said last year, the fact we used AV to elect our leader was a bad decision. We now have Ed instead of David!!!

Actually, if the Labour leadership election had been held using a straightforward system of one person one vote first past the post, Ed Miliband would have beaten David Miliband by 125,649 to 114,205.

[Richard Garvie]

Actually, if the Labour leadership election had been held using a straightforward system of one person one vote first past the post, Ed Miliband would have beaten David Miliband by 125,649 to 114,205.

If it was a two horse race. If you look at the ballot of the first round, David was the clear winner.

[Andy Capp]

It's no more representative, proportionate that FPTP

Immediately I have to disagree for reasons I have post already.

you don't need 50% to elect an MP

You see that as an advantage?

it's no easier to recall an MP

I see this as irrelevant in that it is no easier with either system.

What are the benefits of AV?

1 You could vote for your preferred choice without fear that you would inadvertently help your least favoured candidate. This could therefore encourage more independents.

2 In AV you could elect the least objectionable candidate, which in my view is more representative of the wishes of the most amount of people.

3 In key marginals, candidates would have to be more mindful of the locals' wishes.

Also, 79 and 97 would have returned even bigger majorities than what they actually did, so I'd even say that AV is slightly unstable.

Unstable?

[Richard Garvie]

I respect your view, but I still don't agree!!! What is your "ideal world" system, would it be AV, PR or one of the others?

[Andy Capp]

I respect your view, but I still don't agree!!! What is your "ideal world" system, would it be AV, PR or one of the others?

I currently prefer AV to FPTP.

In my ideal world, people would be given a test a bit like the WBC one and you voted according to your answers, not your favourite colour, or what your dad always voted.