Lib Dems in the Letters Page Options

[Andy Capp]

no - but then I have never voted.

But I do think that folk should be prepared to stand by their convictions. Be critical by all means, but also be prepared to do something about it.

That is fair enough, however Simon has tried to do something about it, but perhaps his cynicism for our local council is the result of such action. I also don't think it would be fair on the candidate, nor the electorate, for a single issue person to stand.

[Simon Kirby]

I also don't think it would be fair on the candidate, nor the electorate, for a single issue person to stand.

It would be a bad idea for me to stand to right my own injustice.

I also have quite a radical agenda for reform and until we can elected non-party independent free-thinkers onto the council that agenda will never get a look in, and if we get a council of free-thinkers then there won't be a need for me to stand anyways. I feel I can do most good by trying to influence the debate from outside the council, there are plenty of open-minded people out there who would make better councillors than I would if they can just be persuaded to stand without a party ticket.

[On the edge]

no - but then I have never voted.

But I do think that folk should be prepared to stand by their convictions. Be critical by all means, but also be prepared to do something about it.

He IS doing something about it and has done a great deal already. The 'why don't you stand' is generally the answer from those with nothing to contribute themselves. Seem to recall a certain local ex MP was over fond of that one when (as usual) stuck for a sensible answer.

[MontyPython]

10 Lib Dem, 11 Tory, 2 Vacant

I think you mean

10 Lib Dem, 11 Tory, all 13 look Vacant!

[dannyboy]

It's one for another thread I suspect, but I have to ask about the apparent inconsistency in your views: you've previously derided my ambition to see the allotment service self-managed and for me to be actively involved in that, but now you appear to sneer at me for not wanting to be a town councillor.

As an allotmenteer on a self-managed site I'd get involved in the site management and maintenance with other volunteers. Management decisions would be made democratically by the allotmenteers themselves and we'd run the site for our own benefit without any financial support from the precept.

As a town councillor I'd sit with other councillors who know feck-all about allotmenteering on a committee that had zero input from the allotmenteers themselves, and the site management and maintenance would be done at the public expense by council officers and contractors because the allotmenteers are prohibited from doing the maintenance themselves.

So how is it that being a councillor is a worthy thing, but self-managing is so wrong?

Such a defeatist attitude.


I derided your wish for self management as you had no support for the idea from the other allotmenters.

[Andy Capp]

Such a defeatist attitude.

He just sees a different method than you to get to where he wants to be.

I derided your wish for self management as you had no support for the idea from the other allotmenters.

Apparently he did, it is just support faded as allegedly the council got heavy on them, but you should know all this already, so I have to ask why you are posting, especially as someone who appears to have such a laissez-faire attitude to everything.

[Simon Kirby]

I derided your wish for self management as you had no support for the idea from the other allotmenters.

Oh. Wasn't that rather mean spirited? The idea had no support, that doesn't mean it had no merit, and either way I don't see how it deserved your derision. It works very well in places other than Newbury and there's no reason to suppose it wouldn't work well in Newbury also. I put a lot of time and effort into researching and promoting the idea, certainly more time and effort than your average town councillor puts in.

[On the edge]

He just sees a different method than you to get to where he wants to be.


Apparently he did, it is just support faded as allegedly the council got heavy on them, but you should know all this already, so I have to ask why you are posting, especially as someone who appears to have such a laissez-faire attitude to everything.

It's all so easy, just roll up the trouser leg and adopt a funny handshake!

[Andy Capp]

It's all so easy, just roll up the trouser leg and adopt a funny handshake!

I don't immediately understand why someone would promote a method of change (standing as a councillor), yet takes no part in democracy themselves (doesn't vote).

[On the edge]

I don't immediately understand why someone would promote a method of change (standing as a councillor), yet takes no part in democracy themselves (doesn't vote).

Quite so!

[dannyboy]

Oh. Wasn't that rather mean spirited? The idea had no support, that doesn't mean it had no merit, and either way I don't see how it deserved your derision. It works very well in places other than Newbury and there's no reason to suppose it wouldn't work well in Newbury also. I put a lot of time and effort into researching and promoting the idea, certainly more time and effort than your average town councillor puts in.

Not really.

You had certain ideas which you thought of merit. Those who would be directly affected by your ideas did not support them.

[dannyboy]

He just sees a different method than you to get to where he wants to be.


Apparently he did, it is just support faded as allegedly the council got heavy on them, but you should know all this already, so I have to ask why you are posting, especially as someone who appears to have such a laissez-faire attitude to everything.

Why post -

well, all talk & no action does get a bit monotonous.

At least RG can't be accused of inaction....

[Andy Capp]

You had certain ideas which you thought of merit. Those who would be directly affected by your ideas did not support them.

For the second time, I understand that the support faltered when the council got heavy. That isn't fact, only what Simon says, but I will for the time being take his comments in good faith.

Why post - well, all talk & no action does get a bit monotonous. At least RG can't be accused of inaction....

Simon staged public protests, lobbied the council and got labelled vexatious, and went to court. That is hardly the sign of inaction.

[dannyboy]

For the second time, I understand that the support faltered when the council got heavy. That isn't fact, only what Simon says, but I will for the time being take his comments in good faith.


Simon staged public protests, lobbied the council and got labelled vexatious, and went to court. That is hardly the sign of inaction.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

[Andy Capp]

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

And perhaps that is what Simon also thinks.

[CharlieF]

It's extraordinary the hard time that Simon gets on this forum. I don't understand it. Far from being a single issue bore, I can't think of many people who do more to initiate debate on matters that touch us all, with well researched and sensible posts. It's a bit rich to be accused of not standing up to be counted!

[dannyboy]

It's extraordinary the hard time that Simon gets on this forum. I don't understand it. Far from being a single issue bore, I can't think of many people who do more to initiate debate on matters that touch us all, with well researched and sensible posts. It's a bit rich to be accused of not standing up to be counted!

not really.

SK posts anything that he thinks will enable him to score a few points against either of the local councils.

to further the debate I take a contrary position. It would be dull if we all just agreed with him.

[CharlieF]

not really.

SK posts anything that he thinks will enable him to score a few points against either of the local councils.

to further the debate I take a contrary position. It would be dull if we all just agreed with him.

It wouldn't only be dull, it would be wrong if people just agreed with him without thinking through the issues he raises. But it would be equally wrong to take a contrary position solely for the purpose of knocking someone down when they have a valid point. Wouldn't it?

[dannyboy]

It wouldn't only be dull, it would be wrong if people just agreed with him without thinking through the issues he raises. But it would be equally wrong to take a contrary position solely for the purpose of knocking someone down when they have a valid point. Wouldn't it?

It would.

[CharlieF]

It would.

Good! Let's revel in Kirby-raised debate!