Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 12:16 PM

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

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 12:27 PM

What is the cost to the Taxpayer?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 01:00 PM

I shouldn't believe it would cost much more if any, the chairman of the council office and role would be scrapped, and that money would more than pay for the mayor. The ruling party at the time of the referendum will decide the cost and salary for the mayor, so it really depends on the party elected in May.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 01:08 PM

Plus the cost of the election.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 01:19 PM

Yes, because the consultation was fudged and the leadership model has to go to referendum, there will be the additional expense of an election next year as it won't be possible to have it all done before the elections this May. That shouldn't be used against the leadership model itself, but more a reflection of the local democracy we have under the current conservative regime. They chose to fudge the consultation from the word go, excluding any mention of support for the mayoral system. This is why we are petitioning for the referendum, so that the local community can actually have their say in an open and transparent process.

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 9 2011, 01:59 PM

Like I have stated in other posts - a small elite only consults the people it knows will give the answer it wants - and only gives the options to vote on that will result in the outcome that they want!!!!

Posted by: 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?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 02:36 PM

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?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 02:42 PM

The problem is all that would happen in West Berks is that the public would vote in a Conservative Mayor.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 02:53 PM

If there was a Conservative Mayor elected by West Berkshire, fine. At least they would be directly accountable to the electorate and would be working full time on council business. We need leadership, not the what we have now where nobody is really accountable for anything and the council lurches from one crisis to another crisis with no real consequence.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 02:56 PM

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

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 03:07 PM

Even you?

I'm going to be the second person in today to remind you that you're no better than us other mere mortal citizens of West Berkshire.

A hunger for power and this sort of arrogance are a dangerous combination.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 03:09 PM

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.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 03:11 PM

What are you going on about? I didn't know about it. Most of the people on this forum didn't know about it. Political parties were not informed about it. So how was it a "public consultation"???

And who has suggested that I'm more important than anyone else? I certainly haven't. A case of you trying to distort another thread, maybe?

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 03:14 PM

It's fairly obvious what you're doing. You've realised that Labour won't win a seat in the local elections so you're looking for another way to gain some sort of power.

You've even said "A Mayor leadership option would not favour any one political party".

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 03:30 PM

Are you suggesting that the leadership model used should favour a political party? Labour will win seats, and we will also help numerous candidates from other smaller parties and independent candidates to win seats too. The mayoral referendum is about giving the people of West Berkshire the opportunity to decide. Not Graham Jones or the Conservative Party, just because a mayor option would affect their own leadership options. We need more transparency and accountability, the mayor option would give us that.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 03:32 PM

For Labour to win seats, plural, they must do better then they've ever done in elections in West Berkshire or Newbury District.

If Labour don't win seats will you take the blame? Are you transparent and accountable?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 03:43 PM

Am I the leader of the party? If I was the leader and we didn't win any seats, I'd happily take full responsibility. Start another thread about the local elections, please stop distorting threads about other topics. The elected mayor petition doesn't have anything to do with the Labour Party as such, we are just facilitating it so that the people of West Berkshire can decide. What is obvious is that we are happy to stand up for what is right, whether it is something we personally believe in or not.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 03:44 PM

You're wriggling and trying to change the subject.

Let me ask you again. If Labour don't win seats will you take the blame or call for the resignation of your leader? Are you accountable?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 03:49 PM

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.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 03:52 PM

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

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 03:52 PM

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.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 03:55 PM

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

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

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 03:58 PM

Only the leader of a party should be accountable?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 04:04 PM

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?

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 04:07 PM

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

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 04:09 PM

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.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 04:26 PM

What would constitute not doing a very good job?

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

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 04:29 PM

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.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 04:42 PM

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?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 04:46 PM

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!!!

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 9 2011, 04:57 PM

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!!!

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 04:58 PM

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

Go to their website and take a look.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 05:15 PM

You never answered mine either.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 05:24 PM

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.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 05:26 PM

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.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 05:27 PM

Not that one.

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

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 05:32 PM

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

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 05:33 PM

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.

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 9 2011, 05:37 PM

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

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

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 05:39 PM

I don't see it.

Any body as large as WBC is bound to have 'crisis' after 'crisis'. Having a Mayor won't change a thing.

Even if we had you as Mayor & a Labour council, nothing would change.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 05:46 PM

First of all, you are just presuming that I would want to be mayor. But what I will say is that things would be different under a Labour leader (whichever model was being used) on the basis that we have put pledges in our manifesto to set out exactly what we would do differently and how we would do it. And it's not a Nick Clegg pledge either!!!

As for the mayoral system, would Graham Jones have axed the Ormonde Centre or Hillcroft House if we was accountable to the wider electorate? He would personally be seeking out the person responsible for the CCTV issue, otherwise it would be him who takes the flack. A full time leader will that is directly accountable to the public will only be positive for the District.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 05:51 PM

What you mean is, had they chose the option you wanted there would be no need for a referendum.

Again, how much will this cost taxpayers?The difference is, with an elected mayor there's a (rather expensive) scapegoat to blame it all on.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 06:02 PM

Not at all. Had the consultation been advertised properly and had all available options been considered, then fine. West Berks Strategic Partnership had their comment excluded as it involved the mayor option, which at the start of the document had been excluded because "it risks introducing the possibility of personality into local politics".

I don't know the exact cost, but whatever it does cost would have been avoided if the mayor option had not been excluded from the consultation.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 06:09 PM

How much is it going to cost?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 06:21 PM

As you can see by the text you have quoted, I don't know the full cost. But it would have cost nothing if the consultation hadn't of been fudged.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 06:56 PM

Come on, you must have a rough idea.

You're not daft enough to have proposed this without taxpayers in mind, are you?

Posted by: JeffG Jan 9 2011, 07:07 PM

How, exactly? What is the difference between a (insert party of your choice) elected Mayor and the majority leader of the (same party) council? Because an elected Mayor is more than likely going to be the same party as the largest party on the council. And therefore have the same mindset.

There are those who think that party politics has no place outside national government in any case. Local decisions should be made by an apolitical committee to benefit the local community, not party dogma.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 07:25 PM

The elected mayor option allows the possibility of an independent mayor who can then appoint whoever he or she likes in the cabinet. Also, some wards have a very small population and some are very big in comparison, so rather than being about the number of seats a party will win, it will be decided on total votes. The only difference to the two leadership models is that one of them allows the wider public to elect the leader in addition to the wards councillors. The arguments for and against a mayor will be made nearer the referendum date of required, the petition will simply call for a referendum to allow the public to be given the choice. If the referendum goes ahead, the public will have to decide based on the facts available to them. On the timetable that is enforced by local government, we are looking at an August referendum should it go ahead.

User 23, the fact is this would have been avoided if the consultation was fair. If the council had acted properly, the referendum might not have been needed, but we'll never know because the council (yet again) acted in a dishonest way.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 07:49 PM

Fair = Reached the conclusion you wanted.

Why won't you tell people how much this will cost taxpayers?

It's because if people know the cost they wouldn't vote for it, isn't it?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 08:12 PM

Based on the population, it could cost around £25,000 from having a quick look at some of the examples. Almost 20% of the signatures required have been collected in the first couple of days, that is the level of support for this scheme. Once again, if the council consultation had been conducted to include all available options, there would be no need for a referendum.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 08:14 PM

who can then appoint whoever he or she likes in the cabinet

LOL, that is democracy is it? It is what we have now!

Posted by: kellsbells Jan 9 2011, 08:14 PM

iS IT FAIR THAT SUPPOSEDLY APOLITICAL COUNCIL OFFICER pHIL rUMENS IS POSTING ON THIS FORUM AS User23? aREN'T YOU SUPPOSED TO BE IMPARTIAL pHIL?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 08:17 PM

No it isn't, and to claim otherwise is absurd. We don't pick the leader at the moment, and if we did Graham Jones would not have slashed public services so quickly. What we need is leadership that acts on the wishes of the electorate, and that is identifying waste and protecting key services.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 08:22 PM

We don't pick the leader of the country either.

Do you think we should have an elected president? It all sounds a bit American to me.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 9 2011, 09:07 PM

A lot af waffle has been spouted by politicians in recent years about the strength of 'democratic decisions', 'democratically elected' leaders and the like.
The weakness with democracy is the majority ain't always right..............


Especially so when the cult of personality means smoke and mirrors and a good make-up artist can make a chancer into a winner.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 12:53 AM

So, a leader once in acts on the wishes of the electorate do they?

Utopia was nothing more than a book.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jan 10 2011, 10:06 AM

Chance of a referendum on Europe / Human Rights Act / Death Penalty under a Labour Governmnent = Zero.

So why should we even consider a referendum on such a waste of time as a Newbury Mayor.
Quite unbelieveable this Mr Garvie...

Posted by: Iommi Jan 10 2011, 10:51 AM

Hear, hear.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 11:34 AM

I don't have any control or say on those issues. I agree with you though, rather than side stepping important issues such as these and immigration, Gordon Brown bottled it and as a result lost the general election. I would never joined Labour under Brown, and I don't know why his government is even relvant now? It's like bringing up certain things than John Major did!!!

The referendum about an elected mayor who will lead West Berkshire will allow the public to decide on the leadership model. There is strong local support, yet the current conservative administration fixed the leadership model consultation preventing any honest debate. Hardly democratic, is it? An elected mayor for West Berkshire isn't a manifesto pledge or is it top priority for the party here in West Berkshire. But we believe there is significant local support for the option, and all of these people were unable to have their say in the consultation. I asked the leader of the council to delay the adoption of strong leader so that these people could have their say, but he refused. The consultation may have shown there was not enough support if it was done correctly, and we would not need to go down this route.

What is important is that the people get to have their say, in an open and transparent process. Under the cionservatives lately, it would appear that very little is transparent. Remember CCTV? Remember affordable housing commitments? Remember day care centre closures and wild cuts to the youth service provision? Unfortunately, none of those issues can be challenged, but the leadership model is one decision that can be challenged due to legislation, allowing the public to have their say. It's just a shame that the leader of the council ignored everyone who requested an open consultation on the matter, including the West Berks Strategic Partnership.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 11:49 AM

So the public have their say & we end up with a conservative mayor who then appoints his/her 'cabinet'.

As that won't change the status quo & infact would mean a stronger Conservative council, I think the council were right to have 'fixed' the lerdership model.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 11:58 AM

Not at all, you are missing the fact that the leader would be accountable directly to the public. at present Graham Jones is elected by the people of Lambourn. Under the mayor system, he is elected by everyone. I guarentee that had he been directly accountable, he would of thought twice about axing vital frontline services. This whole CCTV debacle would not have got this far. Mainly because a directly elected mayor will be held to account.

The referendum will happen in August, and then it will be up to the people of West Berkshire to decide either way. I don't mind what party runs the council, providing they represent the views of the electorate and are accountable. At present, there is no accountability.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 12:01 PM

I what way accountable?

And at what cost?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 12:33 PM

The cost of the mayor would be absorbed by additional expenses paid to the leader and the abolition of the Chairman of the council role and the tens of thousands of pounds that it costs us. We may even be slightly better off, it would depend on what the administration in charge after the referendum decided to award to the post in terms of salary. There is a cost for the referendum, and it could be around £25,000. That is regrettable, but had the consultation been conducted to include all option, there would have been no additional cost.

With regards to accountability, if the Mayor or Cabinet had misled the public or acted in what appears to be a dishonest way, would you vote to keep that mayor? As it is, Graham Jones is leader of the council and even if everyone in Newbury and Thatcham voted against the Conservatives, he could still be leader of the council. If it was the directly elected mayor model, those votes may be worth more than what he got elsewhere and we may get another person leading the council. It's a more proportional system than what we have now, Cameron and the Conservatives are rolling them out over the uk and O would have thought our local conservatives would be inline with their party nationally. I think the Lib Dems will support it too, given the fact that they claim to want a more proportional voting system.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 12:38 PM

So not really accountable then. Unless you are thinking of having Mayoral elections every time there is a **** up.

And you have the cost of a full Mayoral election too.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 10 2011, 01:38 PM

The accountability of all politicians is limited to the ballot box (or the courts in a few cases), it is not likely that a local mayor would be any different.

However, a mayor would be a bit more accountable than our current councillors - who are rarely elected as personalities, more as party representatives. There is no reason why a popular individual should not be elected mayor, regardless of party affiliation (or lack of it).

There would, of course, be a cost to the election, but not a huge one if it was done at the same time as the council elections.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 01:47 PM

Exactly - a bit more accountable. Hardly worth the bother.

We might end up with a Boris Johnson.

Posted by: Squelchy Jan 10 2011, 02:13 PM

Guess this would be a good time to point out that the ONLY time we've ever had a 'referendum on Europe' was back in 1975 under a............wait for it..............under a Labour Government. This was the first, and so far, only nationwide referendum to have been held in the United Kingdom. Funny the things people forget when it suits them.

I also suspect you are confusing our 'Human Rights Act 1998' with the 'European Convention on Human Rights' as drafted by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe and ratified 1953, or was there something in the '98 Act that particularly upset you? (quick, google it)

Posted by: On the edge Jan 10 2011, 03:05 PM

How did the saying go, was it '..and representing death in life Judge Sir David Maxwell-Fyffe' ?

Posted by: On the edge Jan 10 2011, 03:07 PM

How dreadful - things might start to happen!

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 03:09 PM

I'm sure they would. But no way to stop them....

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 03:09 PM

..

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 03:23 PM

That's where you are wrong. Full council will get to vote on all of the big decisions, including ratifying the budget. Mayors can also be recalled by the electorate, wheras there is no way for the public to recall the leader of the council using the strong leader system.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 04:01 PM

Full council voting eh? With the mayor & his cabinet having a whacking great majority....

Recalling Mayors? A little bit US-centric isn't it?

Posted by: Iommi Jan 10 2011, 04:11 PM

Is that an argument for not having it?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 04:15 PM

Not at all.

We can elect our Police Chiefs as well.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 10 2011, 04:20 PM

Like you though, I don't necessarily trust the electorate to make 'the right' decisions.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 04:29 PM

How can you campaign against an elected mayor if you don't even know the facts? I would much rather call the model "directly elected leader", because that is what it is. What's wrong with recalling elected representatives who are not performing? I remember that the Lib Dems and the Coalition Government were all for this before the tuition fee debacle, not sure what the position on it is now. The more I think about it, this should be right up the Lib Dem street, in addition to Cameron's. The Lib Dems want a more proportional electoral system, and also want to be able to recall elected representatives who don't perform. The mayor system is both of those. We already know Cameron and the Conservative Party want to roll mayors out to all large towns / cities and unitaries. So why not here?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 04:31 PM

The problem is as Acton said, power corrupts & absoulte power corrupts absolutely. The electorate have no real say at all.

Once in, those in charge tend to act like Roy Jenkins.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 04:33 PM

Are you sure you are not the same person???

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 04:34 PM

Why, because it makes no bleedin' difference.

In 1997 the UK elected in a Labour Govt. What a waste of time. Apart from the name, you'd never know.

Politics is nothing but jobs for the boys, trebles all round.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 04:38 PM

But it shouldn't be a job for the boys, and the best way to get rid of that menatlity is to ave a more accountable and proportional leadership model in West berkshire.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 04:42 PM

You are kidding yourself if you think changing the method of electing any civic appointment will alter the way in which councils are run.

All it will do is waste more of my tax.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 04:47 PM

Adopting a mayor in West Berkshire might actually save money if you look at the facts. The only additional cost is the referendum, which would have been avoided if the council had conducted a proper consultation. It's not like these points were not made to Graham Jones before the strong leader model was adopted, he could have taken action then but refused. One thing I do know is that this current administration is not transparent or accountable to anyone.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 10 2011, 04:49 PM

I think the only way democracy in politics would improve is if as an electorate we become less selfish and more politicly astute.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 04:51 PM

Might save money?

I can't see how that can be. Accountability has a cost implication.

Forget the cost of the referendum & attempting to score a few points with the repetitious mentioning of the consultation.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 04:56 PM

You brought up the cost of the referendum. The mayor position would be more than covered by abolishing the role of Chairman of the Council, the costs that go with that position and also using the expenses currently given to the leader of the council. From rough calculations, we would need to pay a mayor over £70,000 a year before it cost us money.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 05:02 PM

When I said cost I was refering to the cost of an accountable Mayor. You decided to assume I was on about the cost of the referendum. I'm not on about the cost of paying a mayor either.

So what about the cost when your accountable Mayor has to be recalled? When the electorate wants answers & enquiries are set up? Sounds to me like more jobs for layer upon layer of consultants & bureaucrats.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 05:13 PM

But you did initially use cost as an argument against the mayor option:



A Mayor would only be recalled for a reason, 10% of the electorate need to request it. So unless the mayor lied like the current administration, or fudged consultations like the current administration or even axed vital frontline services without consultation (see where I'm going with this?), the mayor would not need to be recalled. It's a mechanism used to recall a Mayor as a last resort, if there is no other option. At present, the majority of the council can recall a strong leader, but what chance is there of 32 Conservatives recalling Graham Jones? With only 16 opposition members at present, the Conservatives can do what they like, with no consequence.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 05:22 PM

Yes - the cost of having accountability.



I'm glad you finally agree there would be a cost. You really think you can please all the people all the time? Accountability = cost = less cash for 'front line services' = more cuts. No thanks.

If ther was a bottomless pit of cash for councils to spend, then I'm sure they'd not have 'lied' , or 'fudged' or 'axed' so even if your elected Mayor didn't put a foot wrong & never incured the wrath of 10% of the electorate there would still be a cost implication.

Councils don't sit in their ivory towers like despots dreaming up new ways to **** the local population, They do the best job they can, with the cash they can.

Posted by: Darren Jan 10 2011, 05:27 PM

Why only 10% to "recall"?

Surely, it has to be 51% or more so that it's a majority of the electorate wanting it.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 05:28 PM

The cost of a referendum is worth it if it gives the public a chance to have there say. Once again, if the consulation had been conducted properly, there would not be the extra cost. The running costs of having an elected mayor versus strong leader and chairman are less. So maybe over a few years, the money saved will pay for the referendum?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 05:32 PM

It needs to be a majority to adopt the mayoral leadership option. The 10% figure is required to request an election if the public are not happy with the mayor who is in office at the time. At present, if we are not happy with the leader of the council, there is not really a lot we can do other than hope the controlling party at the time loses the election.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 05:32 PM

The trivial cost of the referendum is not the point as you well know.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 05:33 PM

No cost there then?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 05:35 PM

Of all the elected mayors in the UK to date, how many have been recalled? The option is provided, but how many times has it been used?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 05:36 PM

So what cost are you on about? The mayor option would cost slightly less than what we have now, so what are you getting at?

Posted by: Darren Jan 10 2011, 05:40 PM

But to request the re-election it should still be a majority of the electorate, otherwise the incumbent is liable to be subjected to targeted campaigns from a small group.

For example. The council decide to increase parking charges. 10% of the electorate decide to demand a re-election. The other 90% don't want to/don't care. The 10% win. It goes to a full vote and the result is 10% for, 90% against. Result: Cost to the public purse and something has to be cut or raised to cover the loss of funds.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 06:00 PM

I totally agree. But remember 10% is around 13,000 signatures or so. It would need to be a pretty big issue to warrant even that level of support.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 10 2011, 06:03 PM

Yes, would 10% represent ~25% of the local council voting electorate?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 06:11 PM

10% figure is 11,862 based on most recent electoral roll.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 10 2011, 06:22 PM

Which I think was about the same amount of signatures that was gathered for the petition for a new cinema.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Jan 10 2011, 07:35 PM

What he said

Posted by: user23 Jan 10 2011, 07:48 PM

So how much does each mayoral election cost?

Posted by: JeffG Jan 10 2011, 07:59 PM

Why do you keep double-posting with empty posts? Is it just to annoy?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 08:01 PM

If the consulation had considered all options and a mayor adopted, we would be electing this year so wouldn't have cost any extra.

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 10 2011, 08:06 PM

What would the cost be for future years Richard? Just to compare to the present system?

Posted by: user23 Jan 10 2011, 08:17 PM

Why would it not cost any more if we'd elected a mayor this year?

How much will it cost taxpayers next time, and the time after that?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 08:17 PM

The cost of a mayor will be decided by the ruling party in August after should the referendum be a yes vote. If we paid a mayor the same as Leicester (a much bigger city), we would be paying £54,000 a year. We already pay £24,000 a year for a part time leader, and with the costs of the chairman and his duties, and the other costs associated with the strong leader model, we would be saving £16,000 a year by having a mayor.

The referendum will cost the council as much as £25,000, and the election will cost the council money if we choose to adopt the mayor model. But these costs would have been avoided if the consulation had been carried out properly. If Labour control the council after the local elections, we will be proposing to reduce the number of councillors to 30 at the earliest available oppurtunity. By adopting a Mayor, we could possibly reduce the number of councillors next year, saving a further £135,000 a year.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 08:18 PM

If the election for a mayor took place at the same time as the locals, there would be no additional cost. The additional costs are due to having a seperate election.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 10 2011, 08:19 PM

That or more likely an error and there is no delete option.

Posted by: user23 Jan 10 2011, 08:25 PM

There'd be no cost for printing tens of thousands of mayoral voting slips?

There wouldn't need to be extra literature printed for Presiding Officers and Poll Clerks?

The people counting the voting slips wouldn't be paid for doing twice as much work?

How naive. I think you might have made another gaffe Richard or you're trying to deceive people.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 08:43 PM

There would be no additional costs such as polling stations etc. Obviously there will be a need to count the slips and have the slips printed, but that happens in any election.

Why do you keep editing your posts?

Posted by: user23 Jan 10 2011, 08:46 PM

So there wouldn't be "no addition cost".

Why did you try and mislead people and how much will it actually cost?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 08:51 PM

How am I trying to mislead people? I think you are clutching at straws, and yet again trying to distort the debate. An elected mayor would save the District money, and be more transparent and accountable. The costs of the referendum and the ballot slips would be more than covered by the thousands of pounds we save each year. Again, any costs that are experienced by way of referendum and having a seperate election next year should be charged to the leader of the Conservatives.

Posted by: kellsbells Jan 10 2011, 08:53 PM

iGNORE User23. hIS NAME IS pHIL rUMENS AND HE WORKS FOR WEST BERKS COUNCIL AS WEB COMMUNICATION MANAGER. gRAHAM jONES MUST BE PAYING HIM WELL. wHY IS IT OK FOR YOU TO BE IMPARTIAL pHIL, BUT NOT OTHER COUNCIL EMPLOYEES? wHAT MAKES YOU DIFFERENT?

Posted by: user23 Jan 10 2011, 08:55 PM

You said there would be quote "no additional cost" and surprise, surprise, it's actually going to cost thousands extra.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 08:59 PM

Yet we would be saving thousands each year under the mayoral system. The cost of some ballot papers and having the counters stop on for a few extra hours would be next to nothing in comparison to the money we save. Why are you so against the mayor system?

Posted by: user23 Jan 10 2011, 09:03 PM

But you saidThis isn't true, is it?

In terms of the election there will be tens of thousands of pounds of additional cost very time it happens.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 09:18 PM

I would think that the mayor option would be included on the same ballot, but I also thought that the counting staff weren't actually paid anyway. If the counting staff were paid, does it not open up certain conflicts of interests? For instance, if you as a council employee took part, you are on here campaigning against having a mayor. If you were counting the ballots, I wouldn't be happy. I thought counting staff were volunteers?

Adopting a mayor will save money, more money than what the referendum and election will cost. That is regardless of whether we have to print additional ballots or employ counting staff for a few extra hours.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 09:23 PM

For a few extra ballot papers and asking staff to do a few extra hours? If that costs tens of thousands of pounds, I can see why West Berkshire have accumalated debts of over £50m!!!

Posted by: user23 Jan 10 2011, 09:28 PM

It's a different election, legally how can it be on the same ballot paper.

Why does paying staff to count open up certain conflicts of interests?How much do you think tens of thousands of perforated, custom size, individually numbered ballot papers specially printed for the mayoral election might cost? I could be wrong, but I guess a reasonable amount.

I think you need to do some research before you mislead people any more.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 10 2011, 09:36 PM

Many of Mr Gs postings indicate an ignorance of how things work in the real world. He does not know how an election is run, in accordance with law let alone in West Berkshire; he thinks there is such a thing as a free lunch; he forgets 'cost of employment' as opposed to expenses - and that is just on this thread.
It really is not good enough to spout - presumably as a private individual seeing as the local Labour Party leadership has not spoken on the subject - about how the Council/area should operate without demonstration of understanding.
Has any of the WBC 'family' of Councils gone down the Mayor route?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 09:39 PM

At the end of the day, how an election is conducted has nothing to do with political parties. To suggest otherwise is unfair. The purpose of the referendum is to allow the public to decide after the Conservative Party fudged the consultation. Any additional costs / expenditure should be directed towards them.

Posted by: user23 Jan 10 2011, 09:41 PM

The danger is people will believe his claptrap and when he can't deliver having made promised something for nothing based on an ignorance of the facts in almost all cases (his/labour's spending plan, the mayoral elections, CCTV, etc) they will have less interest in politics than they do now.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 09:41 PM

Not yet, but Cameron is pushing for Reading to adopt the Mayor model.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 10 2011, 09:45 PM

Is Reading one of the WBC 'family' of local authorities?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 09:45 PM

Our spending plan was credible, and geared toward responsible financial control. The cost of the mayor election will be covered by savings in running costs and the CCTV issue has been proven to be fact by none other than the chief executive of the council.

If the Tories don't want the leadership model, they should have held a consultation that included the availble options and all of the facts. They didn't, yet another example of the council misleading the people of West Berkshire. What I don't understand is why somebody who is supposed to be Apolitical is on here fighting their corner?

Posted by: user23 Jan 10 2011, 09:45 PM

But we're talking about tens of thousands of pounds worth of additional cost if the mayoral election was held when you wanted, at the same time of the Local Elections.

Why are you suddenly trying to blame this on the Conservative Party when you've claimed there would be no cost doing it your way but have had to backtrack and admit that it will cost taxpayers a great deal if it was carried out the way you wished?You claimed you could save tens of thousands from a department you didn't have a clue what it did.

Who is supposed to be apolitical?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 09:46 PM

I thought you were referring to the old BCC grouping, are you talking of the parish councils?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 09:50 PM

But is it my own personal wish? The Labour Party are giving the public the chance to decide for themselves after the Conservative Party fudged the consulation. Is it fair for the council to prevent the public from having a say on all of the available options? The public might have decided against the prospect of a mayor, meaning there would be no need to proceed further.

At the end of the day, I don't believe there will be any net additional costs by adopting the mayor system, and if Labour do end up in control of West Berks we will drastically reduce spending on the amount of councillors and executive members.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 10 2011, 09:50 PM

Oh dear. Mr G demonstrates yet another lack of understanding. I used my words carefully - 'family' of Local Authorities. Not BCC, Not Parish Councils.

Lack of understanding is one thing, lack of basic knowledge about how local government works is another - especially when you try to criticise......

You are in danger of having to retreat far and often.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 09:56 PM

Why don't you just spit it out? Bedford, Hartlepool, Middlebrough and Torbay are Unitary if that is what you're getting at. A full list can be easily found by google.

Posted by: user23 Jan 10 2011, 09:57 PM

Based on your alternative spending plan and your lack of understanding of some of the basics you've demonstrated in this thread and elsewhere, I don't believe you. I think you're promising what you can't deliver and this can only hurt local politics in West Berkshire.

Who is supposed to be apolitical by the way?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 10:07 PM

Luckily, people won't vote for a mayor on what me or you post here, they will vote based on the facts. It's not my policy, I made my thoughts very clear when this was discussed last year. The purpose of a referendum is to allow the public to have a say after the Conservatives took away that right.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 10:08 PM

Council officers, aren't they? Especially those responsible for publishing information on behalf of the council.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 10 2011, 10:09 PM

Wrong!!!!

Posted by: user23 Jan 10 2011, 10:12 PM

You were urging council officers to join in with the protests against student fees and the cuts in West Berkshire last month.

Why the sudden change, why can't council officers join a union and express their views in their own time?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 10:12 PM

What?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 10:14 PM

Was I asking them to campaign on behalf of Labour or to join the Labour Party? I was asking you to stand beside your colleagues who were losing their jobs.

Posted by: user23 Jan 10 2011, 10:17 PM

Why the sudden change, why can't council officers join a union and express their views in their own time?

A month ago you were saying the exact opposite.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 10 2011, 10:28 PM

You just don't have a clue what 'the WBC family of Local Authorities' means, do you? Not a scoobie.
You don't understand local government, but you want to change it.....

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 10:34 PM

Nope, and google doesn't know either. Would the average person on the street know either? What is it?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 10:47 PM

I have no idea. I click on Add replky & I get two posts. Most annoying.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 10 2011, 10:56 PM

I'm guessing that the "WBC family of Local Authorities" means zip. There's no superior aggregation of West Berkshire siblings as WBC is the only top-level local authority in West Berkshire, and the parish councils under WBC aren't a family in this context because parish councils can't have an elected mayor.

This thread has become even more asinine than usual, which is a shame because it's a serious subject that deserves a serious discussion.

Personally I can't see the point in a referendum about whether we should have an elected mayor because I don't suppose anyone has much idea what an elected mayor would mean, but if you get the signatures then more power to your elbow Richard.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 11:01 PM

Quite easy to get signatures.

Do you think Newbury should have an elected mayor?


Having a directly elected Mayor could end up with a situation like the events surrounding the appointment of Lutfur Rahman in Tower Hamlets....

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 10 2011, 11:07 PM

I believe that the legislation defines the precise form of words to be used. And to illustrate the difficulty of articulating even a relatively simple idea to the voting public, the petition is to ask for a referendum on the mayoral options, not to ask for one specific option - or am I confused now?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 11:09 PM

The wording on the petition might be one thing, The words of the person collecting the petition might be another.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 10 2011, 11:09 PM

G-Man wants a change, but doesn't understand the context. Dangerous start point for change drivers.....
http://www.cipfastats.net/default_view.asp?content_ref=8193

Posted by: Iommi Jan 10 2011, 11:13 PM

It seems clear to me user23, NWNREADER and dannyboy are simply trying to undermine Richard Garvie, regardless of the merits. It is a shame all these people couldn't actually debate the issues rather than indulge cheap tw*tish arguments.

As far as I can tell, I see little merit for an elected councillor, but I also see Richard Garvie's point that it seems the current council has sought to avoid properly consulting on the issue.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 11:15 PM

Hartlepool - isn't that where there is currently a campaign to get rid of the directly elected mayoral system?
Isn't Lewisham having a 'Bring Back Democracy' campign to, get this, force a referendum on getting rid of their elected mayor?

You see - a waste of cash! We might end up with a 'free bananas for schoolkids' mayor....

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2011, 11:43 PM

What any local opposition party, with no hope of ever gaining any power, does is spend all their time ( which they have lots of ) wasting the current in-power parties time.

It is standard procedure in such instances.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 11:49 PM

A free piece of fruit every day for every child in the district... The crazyness!!!

Simon, we are collecting signatures for a referendum on the elected mayor with cabinet role. This is the most accountable. The only real difference to what we have now is that the leader of the council (the mayor) would be directly decided by the people of West Berkshire. To simplify, I could vote for my two ward councillors that I feel would do the best job, and then vote for the best candidate for the leader role. They wouldn't have to be the same party, and we may even have an independent mayor one day. But it's not about what I think, I am doing the petition with my colleagues to ensure that people have a say as the consultation was fudged. If the council had done the consultation properly, a referendum wouldn't be needed.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 10 2011, 11:49 PM

I'd say that is the job of all parties in opposition!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 11:56 PM

Isn't it the job of the opposition parties to hold the council to account? Is asking questions and establishing the truth wasting peoples time? Very democratic...

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 11 2011, 12:15 AM

In which case you need to be clear whether you are posting on behalf of The (West Berkshire) Labour Party - based on agreed policy etc - or as an individual who happens to have a particular persuasion. The two things can be the same, of course.
Whether the consultation was properly conducted is a different issue to whether the outcome was correct. Having a referendum that simply confirms the original outcome (if it does) would be an expensive exercise of 'democratic rights'. If the outcome were to be different, especially with RGs clear lack of understanding of the subject, West Berks could end up saddled with a white elephant.
My view is that RG goes about things in a way that I find objectionable. He is dismissive and patronising (do you think he knows what that means? ).

There is a debate to be had on this subject, but with his style the debate is snuffed out as only his position and supposition can possibly be correct.

Plus, of course, we forum participants no more represent the good folk of West Berks than he does, and we are by no means a majority!!

Posted by: Iommi Jan 11 2011, 12:30 AM

Largely agree with this, but...

I am suspicious of the motives of our council and I don't think due process has been followed. If the council were to explain their position, that would be a start.

Sure RG shoots from the hip, but whilst he remains an activist, I see no problem there. Experience comes in time, and we all have to start somewhere.

If RG is naive or misguided, I wish the people that realise this would articulate their position with a little more maturely, than this: 'Ha-ha, I made you make a mistake, nah-na-na-nah-nah! mentality'. In my view RG is simply asking the questions no-one else can be bothered to ask, which I think is sad, but then I think user23 and dannyboy's motives are loud and clear.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 11 2011, 08:43 AM

Family of local authorities: Do you think the average person in the street knows or cares what that means? To be fair, I am just the same as all of you, and that is somebody who is fed up with the way our local authority is run. All I'm interested in is reducing the waste at the council and protecting key services. I thought everyone would share those goals.

Most of the people I speak to only care about a few things: bins collected when they should be, roads to be kept in decent standard, those who need the services for someone in their family wants the best care service possible and families want decent youth services. Add to that a decent standard of education and some transparency, if you get those things right you would generally be doing ok. Then you have planning, and people understand there will have to be growth as time goes by, but they want responsible growth and also want new houses built that are affordable to those on low salaries.

At present, the council only really get the bins right (most of the time) and we spend £2m over the budget last year. Roads are a disgrace, Care Services have been slashed, youth services have been slashed and we have no end of schools in special measures. Then you have planning, which messed up the LDF process so badly, the inspector asked for it to be suspended until later this year so the council can sort it out. With the lack of transparency around all of these issues, people are fed up.

If everything was perfect, I wouldn't have got invilved and a lot of people I know are feeling the same as me. The council is a shambles, and by having a mayoral system, there would be more accountability and a full time leader. It will also save money each year, more than enough to pay for some extra ballot sheets and to have people count some more paper. Working for the council User23, I thought you would value a more democratic system, but obviously not if it threatens your buddies.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 11 2011, 09:22 AM

I post here as an individual. But the Elected Mayor petition is a Labour Party project aimed at giving the people of West Berkshire a voice on this issue. I would say that it's not my style that snuffs out debate, it is the council themselves who snuff out debat with the way they conduct business. Yes, I can be passionate and be very forthcoming with my own views, I apologise if that upsets you. But cost grounds is not a basis to not have a referendum. If the consultation had been held properly, there would be no need for a referendum.

As for whether the mayor should be adopted of not, people will vote based on the information available to them at the time. At this stage, we are simply collecting signatures to force a referendum on the issue, to give people the right to decide.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 11 2011, 02:04 PM

and what would they be?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 11 2011, 02:05 PM

Is dressing up in a monkey suit and having 'bananas for kids' as your only policy a good thing then?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 11 2011, 02:09 PM

True. Thanks for repeating what I said.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 11 2011, 02:10 PM

It is wasting time when the effort spent achieves nothing.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 11 2011, 02:30 PM

Don't thank me, as what you are proposing is what I disagree with. Democratic due process should be followed whether it is perceived as a waste of money or not. Being a waste of money is difficult to decided because, I have been told, the current council have not properly consulted on the issue. If true, then I think that is wrong and I support people like Richard Garvie in his argument.


It is true when there are people who have a similar attitude to yours, although I feel you are not impartial on this debate anyway. No less or more than Richard Garvie at any rate.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 11 2011, 02:42 PM

I'm nothing to do with the council. Maybe if RG adopted a less sanctimonious attitude and wasn't so totally anti WBC & NTC I'd be less critical of him. His initial salvo on the skate park was a classic.

The council have followed Govt procedure. Labour Govt proceedure in fact.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 11 2011, 03:06 PM

The consultation did not include the mayor option. They also shot down the West Berks Strategic Partnership for even mentioning the mayor option. If they had included all of the available options, there would be no grounds for a petition or referendum. The council were asked by the Coalition to choose between Strong Leader and the Mayor options. The council only put a description of the strong leader model on it's website, and only accepted responses on the Strong Leader model. Therefore it was hardly a fair consultation on both models.

This isn't about what I neccessarily want for the district, it's about giving the people a say as they couldn't do so in the consultation.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 11 2011, 03:08 PM

True - it had already been discounted. As per the white paper.

you mean the handful that could be bothered to reply?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 11 2011, 03:15 PM

When was it last discounted by West Berkshire Council? 2001!!! Do we have the same circumstances now as we did then??? The fact is, we need a proper consultation, and the referendum is the only way to do that now.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 11 2011, 04:31 PM

It is valid to ask if the work done in 2001 remains valid now. If it does, then it may have to be accepted the Mayor option is not suited to WBC. I'm not aware of it being used in a rural area with scattered centres of population, each with its own demands......
Having a referendum does not, sadly, guarantee a better consultation - especially if one side (however many there might be) is as insistant the Mayor model is the answer as others may be that it is not.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 11 2011, 04:40 PM

A lot of you are having a pop at me, suggesting this is my preferred method of leadership. The fact is that this is about letting the people decide. Cameron wants all Unitary councils to move towards the mayor option, in addition to Cities and large towns. This according to a speach he made in Swindon. I believe anything that gives the electorate a direct vote on the leader of the council, who then works full time on council business is a good thing. I would not have pressed the issue unless there was suitable support from the public and other organisations. The fact that so many people had mentioned it prompted me to suggest it to the party, who have now decided to organise the petition.

At least after the referendum, we will know once and for all if the public want it. I believe now that they will probably go for it, and although I've made my own position clear on other threads, i will support it as a step towards a more accountable democracy.

Posted by: user23 Jan 11 2011, 06:40 PM

Perhaps he shouldn't make so many mistakes and still insist that he's correct or blame his obvious shortcomings on others. I have no idea why you're sticking up for him when he's so easily been made to look so daft, by so many, so often on here.

Your words, naive or misguided are probably true but if you're not right then he's purposely trying to mislead people and given he's been bandying around words like "lied" without knowing the full facts of a situation this may be true.

Which ever is true it can only been bad for the public's interest in local politics, someone promising so much they can't deliver which is why I'm against his power-grab in West Berkshire.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 11 2011, 07:02 PM

Richard, who do you think could become mayor? We're used to professional politicians in Westminster, but there's no tradition of it in the counties, so what credible candidates are there who'd give up their day job to be full-time mayor? I have to say the idea is growing on me somewhat, but only if we could get someone who wasn't totally pwned by the officer and establishment self-interest.

Top of my head I can only think of David Rendel. He's credible, and has been a professional politician, and I respect him enough to vote for him, but I don't see him as a radical, and I don't know if that would work with a majority tory council.

If there's anyone else involved in local politics who I trust enough to vote for I can't think of them. Perhaps there's someone credible without a political background who'd go for the job.

Truth is I think so badly of the local politicos that I can't imagine the mayoral system being anything but a waste of time as the incumbent would immediately sell-out and it would be business as usual.

Could we dispense with the services of the Chief Executive if we had a professional mayor?

How much would the job pay?

Oh, and could we get rid of the town council mayor and just have a little parish council?

Posted by: Iommi Jan 11 2011, 07:17 PM

Richard has said more than once, it is the principle of it not being consulted that he is campaigning for, more than the solution itself. Although I am not daft enough to realise that it is also another way to make himself a pain in the ar$e for the Tories. Rightly or wrongly, that is our democratic system.

Posted by: user23 Jan 11 2011, 07:48 PM

You don't think he'll stand for mayor himself?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 11 2011, 10:00 PM

If the mayor system was adopted, all parties would nominate someone as would Labour. It wouldn't be upto me to stand, I'd have to be nominated by the party here and then voted to stand by Labour Party members. I wouldn't be able to do it because of my work commitments anyway, I have a young business and if it doesn't work out I will be the big loser of the situation.

This is about having a say on the issue, not being dictated to by Graham Jones and his mates. If the people of West erkshire decide they want one, so be it.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 11 2011, 10:06 PM

Dunno and I don't really think it makes a difference.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 11 2011, 10:09 PM

Well, who would be the candidates. We have some very astute members within the local Labour Party, as do the Lib Dems. David would be a strong candidate as would Jeff Brooks, the current leader of the Lib Dems. For the Tories, if Graham Jones couldn't stand, I really don't know who would? That would be an issue for them. But what I like about the mayor system is that anyone can stand and have a shot at it. Everyone in the district has one vote to decide who should be leader (mayor). It's the exact same structure of the council, but the leader of the council will be elected by 40,000 people rather than 800 people and then parachuted in by his mates on the council.

It's a more representative system, and the leader suddenly becomes accountable. They would be working full time on council business, and if there are problems like the CCTV issue, they would have to take action otherwise they would be the one held accountable. The salary is around £54,000 based on the Leicester example, but whoever is running the council after the referendum will decide. The chief executive would still be required as a position, as it's totally correct that political goals are seperate from the corporate requirements to avoid certain conflicts.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jan 12 2011, 09:03 AM

Is this the answer to the Newbury Mayor problem. He gets my vote!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxCpr1FfbHo

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 12 2011, 09:37 AM

He's got the X Factor!!!