Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: panda Mar 18 2011, 11:25 PM

Is Richard Garvie going to stand for council in the local elections

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 18 2011, 11:29 PM

yeah, for the monster raving loony party

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 19 2011, 08:51 AM

Yes.

Posted by: user23 Mar 19 2011, 09:28 AM

Why the change of heart?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 19 2011, 09:48 AM

Nominations have opened? Papers submitted?

Or do you mean 'I intend to'?

Posted by: kellsbells Mar 22 2011, 05:19 PM

Are you still standing in Central Thatcham?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 22 2011, 05:20 PM

Maybe

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 23 2011, 08:14 PM

You've done it again........

Posted by: user23 Mar 23 2011, 08:23 PM

He's avoided a question.

Not a great start when apparently, "transparency and democracy appear to be the backbone of the campaign".

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 23 2011, 08:26 PM

Yes. Call the police. It is an outrage.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 23 2011, 08:27 PM

I obviously need my nomination to be approved, but barring an all out campaign to stop me from being allowed to stand, I will of course be seeking election.

I thought that would be obvious.

Posted by: user23 Mar 23 2011, 08:30 PM

It's not obvious seeing as you said you weren't going to stand to further your political career, around a month ago.

Why the U-turn?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 23 2011, 08:32 PM

Because I'm not standing to further any political career. I have no real desire to be a politician. I'm standing because I believe I can do better that what we have now.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 23 2011, 08:39 PM

Then do not stand for a political party. Has to be said, on past experience, you have a better chance as an Independent than as a Labour candidate. Especially as you say you will support Conservative policy in some of your activities.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 23 2011, 09:02 PM

It's called being responsible. The Labour Party nationally do not oppose everything this Government is doing, Labour would have had to make savings too. The point of difference is how the savings are delivered and prioritising certain things. Just like in West Berkshire, we should all be working towards identifying any savings before we close day centres, youth clunbs etc.

Answer me this: How can a council justify charging disabled people to collect litter?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 23 2011, 09:48 PM

Perchance answered elsewhere - as best I know they don't need to because they are not proposing to.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 23 2011, 09:57 PM

Wack, wack, oops! They're not.

Please think before you post!

Posted by: user23 Mar 23 2011, 10:02 PM

Looks like someone's "making things up".

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 23 2011, 10:04 PM

Yes. He needs to put a lot more practice in before he becomes General Secretary.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 23 2011, 10:06 PM

At a recent council meeting, was it not suggested that clients could utilise their personal budgets to do this?

Posted by: user23 Mar 23 2011, 10:06 PM

At the moment all I see is General Incompetence.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 23 2011, 10:07 PM

Exactly, and the PB is money given to them by the Council......... Self help........ Not a charge......... No compulsion.......

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

Money given to them because day centres are being removed. What if somebody wants to attend a day centre (if one could be found) one day a week and litter pick another day? That budget will soon be gone.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 23 2011, 10:12 PM

If I give someone money for them to fund their chosen activities they can chose to spend it all, some, none, or more (and add their own contribution. I really cannot see what you are now trying to say....... Many people will be able to resource their needs cheaper than it costs WBC to provide it, and more flexibly.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 24 2011, 07:59 AM

So those with learning disabilities and mobility issues, what about them? Those with learning disabilities would struggle to administer their personal budgets and those with mobility issues will have nothing to do. Personal budgets should be an option, with other choices available including day centres.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 24 2011, 11:41 AM

Thus doubling the cost to WBC? As I see it it is an either/or situation.

People unable to cope with the personal budgets are, presumably, already unable to cope with their current finances and have support to help them. This support won't have to expand much in order to take in the extra cash from the personal budgets.

The problem lies in the need to remove publically funded facilities in order to create the market for privately funded alternatives - and the uncertainty that the private facilities will ever appear. Are any local charities or private companies showing any sign of doing anything?

In my opinion WBC would have done better to keep more of the day centres and to run them as if they were commercial, charging users the market rate for such places and expecting them cover their costs.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 24 2011, 01:25 PM

There was no consultation before the announcement to close the centres was made. If there had been, I'm show groups could have planned to take on the existing day centres and run them will less council finance, but the option was never made available. Think about it, the council could have done it to promote the big society, think of the PR value of protecting those services in the financial climate by using David Camerons masterplan. Instead, they are axing the centres and youth clubs and asking people to pick up the pieces.

Where are the private led day centres and services? Why are the service users not being consulted? The council claims people are being consulted, but it appears that only select support groups are involved, and the majority of users are still none the wiser. This is why people are campaigning against the closures, and it may be that proper consultation would resolve many of the issues.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Mar 24 2011, 01:33 PM

Richard - As you feel so strongly about the closure of the day centres / youth clubs why not head up a charity to generate funds to pay for these? You obviously have a lot of time / energy. Much more constructive than just moaning all the time.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 24 2011, 01:40 PM

If the council are prepared to enter into discussion with regards to keeping the facilities open, I would happily work on a plan to allow the community to take over the facilities at a saving to the taxpayer. The administration refuse to discuss anything with me, but the offer is there.

Hopefully the Day Centre Action Group will be able to put forward a proposal, and with my involvement being only as an advisor now, the council have no reason not to engage.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 24 2011, 01:47 PM

Day Centre Action Group? Who are they, then? No-one consulted me.......

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 24 2011, 01:49 PM

Everyone is invited, next Tuesday at 7:30pm, Newbury FC club house on Faraday Road.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 24 2011, 01:51 PM

I didn't ask where they met, I asked who they are. What is their remit, their objectives? How are they consulting with interested individuals to see whet the broad opinion is?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 24 2011, 04:10 PM

Those who are attending are either carers, service users and their families I would say. The meeting on Tuesday is to for a steering committee and progress with the campaign to save the centres.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 24 2011, 06:46 PM

Getting there.....

Remit? Consultation with people involved? I've had plenty of contact from WBC, none from this group......

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 25 2011, 05:14 PM

Sorry, I must be being dim or something, but I'm struggling to find what you have to do and by when to stand in the Newbury parish elections. Can anyone point me at some information please.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 25 2011, 05:17 PM

You can colect nomination forms from the town council, you then have to get ten people to sign your nomination slip. The closing date for nominations in a week on Monday I believe. Let me know via email if you have any specific questions and I'll forward them on to our election agent to answer for you.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 25 2011, 05:23 PM

Become mad; about now.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 25 2011, 05:56 PM

You have to either belong to the funny handshake brigade or be a member of the local mafia to stand any chance of election success. unless you wish to stand as an independent then you will need a small miracle to break the hold of the local Tory blue rinse society.

Still nothing ventured.......

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 25 2011, 06:10 PM

I can't see it being any fun at all.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 25 2011, 06:12 PM

But you will get rich on expenses and allowances, and free use of the Council Chamber........ unless you do away with it!!!

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 25 2011, 06:16 PM

I feel voters are completely at a loss at the moment. They do not have any one they can vote for with complete confidence.

Give it a go Simon I am confident you can raise ten sponsors for the first leg?
I know of numerous people who are totally disgruntled with the present lot.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 25 2011, 06:19 PM

Oh silly, that was just something I said.

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 25 2011, 06:19 PM

What's wrong with all you people. Here is a guy who is prepared to engage with the council, feels strongly about the support groups for the people chucked out of their centres and on the surface is offering loads of his own time.
I don't care what his reasons are for doing what he's doing but at last there is somebody who is not just posting backbiting trivia. All you anti guys, what are you doing apart from, like me, sitting on your backsides, hidden by your nom de plume and moaning on a forum.

NWN reader, User 23, Tall Dark and handsome, perhaps you would care to let us know what you are doing to support the groups.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 25 2011, 06:19 PM

Just have more policy ideas than allotments and getting rid of the Mayor!! Single cause candidates can succeed, but not that often.........

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 25 2011, 06:22 PM

Thank you.

Actually it's 2 sponsors at the parish level.

Anyone know how much the deposit is at a parish election, and how many votes you need to get it back?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 25 2011, 06:29 PM

Can you name a single cause championed by a single town councillor (and no wise cracks about Viccy Park).

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 25 2011, 06:34 PM

Sorry! Just get so despondent and find it is impossible to break the hold of the local mafia. The people of Newbury do not like change and all decisions are made by just a handful of the local clique dignitaries. No notice is taken of whatever the local electorate want and so you get the apathy that is present as now.

Posted by: user23 Mar 25 2011, 07:10 PM

Why do you think we support the aims of the groups?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 25 2011, 07:15 PM

Exactly. When would you find time between work and posting on this forum!

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 25 2011, 07:37 PM

I don't think you do as the closures are a WBC decision which you will obviously support 100%, so in that case, you are quite prepared to sit on your backside and criticise someone who does believe that the decisions are wrong.

Posted by: user23 Mar 25 2011, 07:41 PM

Why does it come as a surprise to you that I and others here might criticise someone who we believe to be wrong?

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 25 2011, 07:49 PM

Really because it is a foregone conclusion.

Posted by: user23 Mar 25 2011, 07:52 PM

Well of course. People are hardly likely to agree with a viewpoint they don't support, are they?

To complain that people aren't getting off their backside to support something they don't agree with seems an odd thing to do.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 25 2011, 08:12 PM

Unless of course, if that person was implying a certain prejudice exists among members?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 26 2011, 09:43 PM

Groups? I pay for the gig tickets. Local and elsewhere.

Unless you meant something different, but this thread being about the local elections......

Posted by: CharlieF Mar 31 2011, 02:36 PM

Actually you need 10 nominations from electors within the ward for District Council but only 2 for the Town/Parish Councils. But for parish / town you must be either

* A local government elector for the parish/Town ;or
* The occupier of land or property in the parish/town for the last 12 months;or
* Has had principal or only place of work in the parish/town for the last 12 months ;or
* Has lived in the parish/town, or within 4.8 kilometres (3 miles) of its boundary for the last 12 months.

Phil Runacres in WBC Market St has the papers for parish/town and district.

Posted by: CharlieF Mar 31 2011, 02:42 PM

As the parishes & Hungerford town are apolitical (and if you're standing as an independent) you are welcome to get in touch for some support from the Apolitical Group. It's there as an umbrella group for independents to help, support, advise etc.
Contact me or Dave Yates (admin at apoliticaldemocrats.org.uk)

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 31 2011, 06:30 PM

That's very kind of you Charlie, I appreciate your taking the time to respond.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 31 2011, 09:19 PM

Other options are starting to surface:
http://ukipnewbury.org.uk/ukipnewbury-local-elections.html

Posted by: user23 Mar 31 2011, 09:20 PM

UKIP put forward candidates last time did they not, as did the BNP.

I wonder if the latter will do so again.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 31 2011, 09:24 PM

Not if they value their money.

Posted by: user23 Mar 31 2011, 09:41 PM

Their money? I don't understand.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 31 2011, 09:44 PM

I know, but promotion is rarely free.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 31 2011, 10:03 PM

Can anyone access the West Berkshire LibDems discussion group?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 31 2011, 10:06 PM

Have they got one?

Posted by: user23 Mar 31 2011, 10:09 PM

Where's it held?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 31 2011, 10:09 PM

Of course not - that is why I asked..............


be careful, though, Richard. can't see one on yours at all, let alone an empty offer

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 31 2011, 10:15 PM

http://westberkslibdems.org.uk/en/page/forum, but I understand that a horrid nasty prole turned up and joined and they had to close it down. Nasty, nasty proles.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 31 2011, 10:22 PM

RG is here. The only Newbury politician prepared to engage on our terms. On any terms come to that.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 1 2011, 07:17 AM

I would add one if we had the option, but our website provider doesn't supply that option yet, and it's far too technical for ,me to set up!!! Did many people use the Lib Dem one?

PS. I see the Tories and the Lib Dems have now produced a manifesto which is excellent. Is this because we publish one a few weeks ago? My only concern is that we spent six months consulting with residents and party m4embers, have they just cobbled one together for the sake of it? The devil will be in the detail!!!

Posted by: blackdog Apr 1 2011, 09:25 AM

Surely amongst all your supporters there must be at least one technically competent enought to set up a forum. Believe it or not you don't have to do everything yourself.


Dream on. I think you'll find that manifestos are usually produced just before an election.


Whereas they have been active in local politics for decades, have experience of running West Berks, and a greater understanding of the ramifications of power.

Posted by: Bofem Apr 1 2011, 10:58 AM

A Conservative councillor admitted to me they're coasting this one. They know the Libs are sinking nationally, and need renewing locally. Agent Garvie is getting right on their t*** though!

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2011, 11:06 AM

It is about time we had opposition in this town.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 1 2011, 03:52 PM

I'm pretty surprised at the lack of effort they are putting in. Not even had a leaflet through my door.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 1 2011, 05:02 PM

Possibly something to do with the standing of politicians with the general public at the moment.
I have not heard a good word said about any party.
I don't believe you will find many politicians brave enough to go knocking on doors for support at present?

Posted by: CharlieF Apr 1 2011, 06:16 PM

You're welcome. Are you going for it?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 1 2011, 06:44 PM

Still not sure. It'll take a lot of campaigning to stand a chance. I'll decide Monday.

Posted by: user23 Apr 1 2011, 07:10 PM

Make sure you decide by Midday.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2011, 07:25 PM

Who are the current councillors for your area? Who would you be up against?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 1 2011, 07:38 PM

My current home ward councillors are the Conservatives Cllrs Bairstow, Edwards, Singh, and Fenn. I've no idea if they're all standing or who the lib dems will be. I very much hope there'll be some alternative candidates too.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2011, 07:48 PM

Falkland, two seats: Fri, May 04 2007

Adrian Edwards - Conservatives - 1537 votes - ELECTED
Howard Bairstow - Conservatives - 1510 votes - ELECTED
Mavis Greenhalgh - Liberal Democrats - 1070 votes
Peter Greenhalgh - Liberal Democrats - 1070 votes
Derek Brear - Labour Party - 100 votes

You'd do very well to get a 100 votes I'd say.

Posted by: user23 Apr 1 2011, 07:52 PM

You might be confusing the Town and District councils.

Simon should stand for the Town Council.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2011, 07:59 PM

Yes, but the same opinion applies.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 1 2011, 08:00 PM

Quite so, it's the Town Council that I'm thinking about, and yes, I think 100 votes would be doing very well. It'll take around 1500 to win a seat.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2011, 08:02 PM

And you would have to be a Tory 'toff' (this is a Fair Comment posts).

EDWARDS Adrian Arthur Walter Conservatives ELECTED 1584
BAIRSTOW Howard Martin Conservatives ELECTED 1531
FENN Marion Elizabeth Conservatives ELECTED 1501
SINGH Kuldip Conservatives ELECTED 1444
NASH-WILLIAMS Roxana Louise Liberal Democrats Not elected 1045
FERGUSSON Peter Napier Liberal Democrats Not elected 1021
LALLY Ceinwen Delia Liberal Democrats Not elected 1014
COOPER David Edward Liberal Democrats Not elected 989

I think this demonstrates the influence of party political allegiance, even at local level.

Posted by: user23 Apr 1 2011, 08:06 PM

You can't blame people for voting for them.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2011, 08:07 PM

Who's blaming anyone?


Simon, why not stand as candidate for the Not Any of the Above Party?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 1 2011, 08:17 PM

I think i'm right in saying that in all the wards bar one the vote went entirely with one party or the other. The only exception being Cllr Phil Barnett who would appear to have been elected for who he is despite the party he stood for.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2011, 08:20 PM

Yes.

http://www.newbury.gov.uk/councilelections07.htm

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 4 2011, 02:45 PM

So who's bitten the bullet and decided to stand then? We have put forward 30 candidates, but I expect one to be knocked off for not being 18 today, although they will be at the local elections. Apparently that is the rules, so hopefully they are not too upset by it.

Posted by: oldharry Apr 4 2011, 05:17 PM

As a member of UKIP I resent your implication.

Posted by: Strafin Apr 4 2011, 05:44 PM

What implication? That fringe parties will be putting up candidates as well the normal three (or in West Berkshire 2).

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 4 2011, 06:16 PM

In my ward we only have the choice of Conservative or Liberal Democrat. So no one to vote for as I don't want either? How do I register a protest vote? So much for democracy!

Posted by: Strafin Apr 4 2011, 06:35 PM

Don't vote - that is a way of protesting.

Posted by: user23 Apr 4 2011, 06:56 PM

What implication?

There seems to be two KIP candidates this time, is one of them you?

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/wbx11.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 4 2011, 06:57 PM

Not me. I'll be canvassing for the Labour candidates in the Falkland ward.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 4 2011, 07:40 PM

"This spring, West Berkshire Council will be running WBX11 officially called the Local Government Elections, a competition that will not only change the lives of those who enter but everyone in West Berkshire."

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 4 2011, 08:57 PM

I'm sorry cognosco, we did plan to stand someone in every ward, but we lost 11 candidates due to being supplied with incorrect paper work, one because her form was checked by the council on Friday and told it was fine only to be rejected today and another in Kintbury who would have been a great candidate but he doesn't qualify because his birthday is only a few days before the election.

What ward are you in?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 4 2011, 08:59 PM

Do you know when the town candidates will be published? I know Labour are putting three in Falkland and one in Victoria.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 4 2011, 09:34 PM

You could ask the council, but I don't suppose they'd let you have the list.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 4 2011, 09:38 PM

I saw Graham Hunt tonight, and apparently West Berks have yet to provide it. They are putting together the list for all of the parish councils, so will expect it late tomorrow or Wednesday. Looks like I'm up against your pal in the Parish election!!!

Posted by: NorahG Apr 5 2011, 08:43 AM

Seems not Richard. I think you've been disqualified because of where you live! Good luck to all the candidates. Perhaps the allotment business can be sorted out by the new lot and I can put my application in.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 5 2011, 09:18 AM

If they are too young to stand for election, are they not also too young to be a proposer / seconder?

Posted by: Criddleback Apr 5 2011, 09:44 AM

the Newbury Town Council nominations are now http://www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=27375&p=0- with the other West Berkshire parish level nominations.

Posted by: oldharry Apr 5 2011, 10:43 AM

The implication by both you and Strafin that UKIP and the BNP are similar by mentioning them in the same context.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 5 2011, 01:50 PM

It looks like he tried to stand in the Falkland Ward but he is 'Invalid'

Posted by: JeffG Apr 5 2011, 02:18 PM

The similarities are that they are the two parties I would be least likely to vote for.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 5 2011, 03:16 PM

I am actually valid to stand in that ward, and I'm not happy about being excluded.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 5 2011, 03:48 PM

Why were you deemed 'invalid'?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 5 2011, 04:31 PM

It's not because of distance anyway, I think there is an argument over the actual form and whether the second form was filled out correctly. We'll have to wait and see.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 5 2011, 04:40 PM

What do you have doubt over? Is there a copy of the form on line or anything? 'Invalid' does sound more than a form error.

I suspect it is some form of masonic conspiracy; time for an investigation I think!

Posted by: JeffG Apr 5 2011, 05:08 PM

I'd have thought councillors would prefer to have Mr Garvie inside the tent, than outside.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 5 2011, 05:11 PM

Are you saying RG is p*****g about?

Posted by: JeffG Apr 5 2011, 05:58 PM

I have just seen on the local news that one prospective candidate for (I think) Christchurch has been ruled out because she put "Candidate for the Labour Party" rather than "Labour Party Candidate" on her form.

I wonder what petty-minded jobsworth made that decision? It seems like it's easier to get an application for an extradition warrant right (and we know how fussy they are), than an application to stand as a local councillor.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 5 2011, 06:13 PM

After reading some of the posts on here from covert councillors, I'm left wondering how some of the successful candidates made it through this initiation process.

Indeed, a while back, dannyboy argued that poor literacy shouldn't be an obstacle for an election candidate. It would seem it can be.

I'll be interested to find out why Richard Garvie got bounced.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 5 2011, 06:31 PM

I wonder if it would have been the same outcome if a Conservative candidate had filled hers in with Candidate for the Tory party?

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 5 2011, 06:39 PM

Well he has got up the nose of the local Mafia. You must realise that is not allowed in Newbury?

Posted by: user23 Apr 5 2011, 06:42 PM

This simply isn't true.

If I mentioned chalk and cheese in the same context as I have done here, am I implying they're similar?
Whoops! Another gaffe from the Labour Party Campaign Manager, failing to get himself nominated for the Town Council elections. This coming on top of the admission that he couldn't contact 11 of his prospective candidates so they also failed to be nominated for the District Elections.

I suspect the other parties might make political capital of this almighty mess up.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 5 2011, 06:42 PM

It is either that, or his coordination skills have been fond wanting!

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 5 2011, 06:45 PM

What ever happened, the democratic process has been let down. I'm also disappointed that you should choose to be so smug about this considering you seem to champion people trying to get into the local politics.

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 5 2011, 06:54 PM

Perhaps you should have filled it in (correct English) rather than "filled it out" (American).

Posted by: user23 Apr 5 2011, 06:55 PM

Smug? Not me.

I do champion people trying to get into the local politics however if they and their party are so inept that a quarter of them can't even get nominated it's probably best for all that they weren't.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 5 2011, 07:02 PM

Yes agree with this we have had more than enough ineptness with the lot we have now.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 5 2011, 07:06 PM

The tone in your post betrays you.


So it is the candidates' fault that they were advised wrongly, is it? Where have I heard that sort of thing happen before in local politics.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 5 2011, 07:06 PM

Are they good?

Posted by: user23 Apr 5 2011, 07:09 PM

That's just the way you're reading it.

You could have a point, perhaps they were advised wrongly by their campaign manager, they still should have checked that they were doing things correctly themselves.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 5 2011, 07:14 PM

Of course it is, but I am not a complete idiot either.


So what did they do wrong then?

Posted by: user23 Apr 5 2011, 07:18 PM

Supplied incorrect paperwork and then weren't contactable for it to be corrected, so says Richard.

Posted by: Criddleback Apr 5 2011, 07:22 PM

Re: The Christchurch example

You have to get the party description precisely right. The rules are there to protect against people trying to pretend they represent a party they don't represent. Any party agent worth her or his salt drums the correct description into the candidates - normally standing over them as they write it.

Re: West Berks

The electoral department at West Berks are very amenable. They allow you to bring in forms early and then they run a check on them and tell you if there's a problem - so you have time to go away and come back with a correct form - for example. They have to be very precise with addresses and electoral roll checks to prevent impersonation etc.

Around five hundred candidates have managed to fill in the form correctly and are standing as candidates in the WBC or parish council elections.

Out of that five hundred odd, five forms were ruled as invalid.

Interestingly, three of those five rejected forms were from one party.

....Just saying.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 5 2011, 07:33 PM

Thats is fine, but still seems unreasonable for there to be no system for redress.


Where did RG's 11 rejects come from then? It would seem that it is an advantage if you have done it before. It is a shame for those 'genuine' ones that will miss out.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 5 2011, 07:53 PM

For the record, campaign manager is responsible for the campaign. Nothing to do with the legal side. If I was responsible for everyones papers, I wouldn't have had a clue!!!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 5 2011, 07:55 PM

Wrong. The council failed to provide all of the paperwork that was required. We couldn't get in touch with all 41 candidates to get the additional paperwork signed in time. One officer told me late on Friday afternoon that none of our candidates would be excluded as it was THEIR mistake. Let's see what the electoral commission say.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 5 2011, 07:57 PM

Not eleven rejects, eleven sets of papers were unable to be handed in on Monday as when we took them in on Friday (three days early), we were told that we were missing forms. Forms that should have been supplied to us.

Posted by: user23 Apr 5 2011, 08:02 PM

You forgot to collect all of the paperwork that was required, then couldn't get in touch with all of your candidates?

What's your next venture after this, running a brewery?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 5 2011, 08:14 PM

Why is it suddenly my fault?

Just in simple terms for your benefit:

Before the election agent meeting, our election agent (who hadn't done this before at local elections) requested all forms required be given to him at the meeting. The council agreed to do this.

Grahame collected the forms at the election agent meeting, and proceeded to hand them out to be completed.

The forms were completed three days early and returned to West Berks.

ONLY THEN did we find out that the council required two additional forms. I'm not an election agent, but I was given my forms seperately by West Berks, and they had the addition paperwork so my form was ok on Friday. We asked the officers to check the paperwork on Friday to ensure all we needed to do was get the additional papers siggned. They said they were fine.

Over the weekedn, we managed to get thirty of the candidates to complete the additional papers.

On returning the forms, the council excluded Adam (which appears to be correct on age grounds - even though his form was passed on Friday) and Carol (her form was excluded for missing a detail - even though it was passed on Friday).

I'm not saying it's just the council at fault, but why would they not supply us with the papers everyone else received?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 5 2011, 08:36 PM

I think we already have a few breweries minus a p*ss-up.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 5 2011, 08:51 PM

anyone got a link to a nomination form online? Or does anyone have one that they can give me?

EDIT: Got one.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 5 2011, 09:04 PM

Post the link?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 5 2011, 09:20 PM

Sorry, I'm confused. Richard, can you say for which of the council elections you're registered as a candidate?

Posted by: blackdog Apr 5 2011, 10:42 PM

He is registered as a candidate in the Speen Ward for the district council elections, but has been rejected as a candidate in the Falkland Ward for the NTC parish elections.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 6 2011, 07:40 AM

http://www.hermitage.org.uk/files/parish_council_nomination_form.pdf

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 6 2011, 07:41 AM

I've been bounced from the town elections, but will stand for district still.

Posted by: oldharry Apr 6 2011, 08:38 AM

Then I hope you are successful. I am by no means a Labour supporter, but we need an erudite alternative voice on West Berks Council.

Posted by: user23 Apr 6 2011, 11:39 AM

Richard, looking at that form you posted and from you saying you filled in B, you must have incorrectly declared

"I have during the whole of the twelve months preceding the date of my nomination occupied as owner or tenant the following land or other premises in the above Parish"

Surely you must have known whether you've been living in the Parish or not for the past 12 months?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 6 2011, 01:26 PM

While Richard was daft for not reading what he was signing, he is till eligible according to the conditions.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 6 2011, 02:05 PM

Even if he falsely declared that "I have during the whole of the twelve months preceding the date of my nomination occupied as owner or tenant the following land or other premises in the above Parish"?

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 6 2011, 04:02 PM

In that case, how will you campaign for them? Will the Party allow a declared non-supporter speak to voters on its' behalf?

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 6 2011, 04:18 PM

Whose fault is it if one of the 3 leading political parties (nationally) cannot find/train/brief an Election Agent? I'm no expert, but I believe the notes with the paperwork makes the requiremnts clear, and the Agent - who wants the candidate to have a chance - should double check before coming away that everything is present and correct, and should check each form before submission. Ignorance is no defence.
With the dates all known well in advance, why leave it to the last minute to submit the papers? Of the 5 rejects only 3 are 'candidate errors' and they are all Labour. Numerous candidates have no party allegiance, or are campaigning for what I hope they will not mind being called 'minority' parties.

A serious point, is a party that cannot get competent people in place to manage a campaign likely to be competent to manage matters for the electorate?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 6 2011, 04:33 PM

He is eligible according to D:

"(d) I have during the whole of those twelve months resided in the Parish or within 4.8 kilometres (3
miles) of it"

The chances are the bloke overseeing the forms probably could be bothered to see him go through it again.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 6 2011, 04:35 PM

Of course not. This is a major political gaffe.

Posted by: Bofem Apr 6 2011, 04:43 PM

Good. He'll fit in well then

Posted by: user23 Apr 6 2011, 04:55 PM

The bloke "overseeing the forms" (not entirely sure what this means) probably didn't think anyone, let alone a party's Campaign Manager could be so daft as to get a multiple choice question based on where they've lived for the past year wrong.

This is another in a series of gaffes from our Local Labour Party. If this high profile local member can get something so simple, so wrong then I wonder what the rest are like?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 6 2011, 04:58 PM

If you are not entirely sure what the bloke "overseeing the forms" means, then how do you know what he is likely to think?

We are talking about one of the most unLabour towns in the country, so they are not likely to waste good election officers on us.

Posted by: Strafin Apr 6 2011, 05:09 PM

Old Harry just said that he wished RG luck, nowhere did he say he would be speaking on their behalf. Also whilst we're amending errors, I did not imply anywhere that UKIP and the BNP should be connotated together. If connotated is a word.

Posted by: user23 Apr 6 2011, 06:16 PM

I can take an educated guess and I'm guessing that the guy thought it was just common sense that someone wouldn't make a false declaration about where they lived.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 6 2011, 06:57 PM

That depends on what RG asked the bloke. Perhaps RG signed it , then realise his mistake, asked the bloke and he (the bloke) said it was all right. Who knows. In any case, RG and the Labour Party have dropped off big time. Not that we are likely to get any Labour councillors. Anyone know the last time the Newbury district had a Labour councillor?

Posted by: user23 Apr 6 2011, 07:13 PM

1979.

Newbury District Council had one Labour councillor in 1976 and 1979. They also came reasonably close in 1973.

The Labour Party haven't done their homework again, as they're not fielding any candidates in that ward this year.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 6 2011, 08:43 PM

Sorry Richard, but can you say why you have been declared not qualified to stand in the NTC election?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 6 2011, 09:28 PM

He made an invalid declaration. The discussion is immediately above.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 7 2011, 05:21 AM

I can't seem to find what RG said that disqualified his candidacy. Richard, can you say why you were disqualified?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 7 2011, 05:52 AM

I asked the officer "do I have to fill in every box again" with ragards to the qualification to stand. I was told one would do as "you'll be alright". I didn't read it properly and just filled out box D which relates to owning / renting in the area for twelve months. If I had read the form carefully, I only qualify through C "Employment" and D "Living in the area or within 4.8KM".

I should have read the form to be honet, so I can't blame anyone but myself on that one. Even though I had someone standing over me waiting to take the paperwork from me, it was still me who was filling it out.

What hurts is that I wanted to stand, and now I can't do so. There was a number of people turned away on Monday morning, I know BrianB doesn't post here but he was speaking to one of the people who got sent away.

Posted by: Strafin Apr 7 2011, 06:22 AM

Now you can call me cynical, but it strikes me that you were able to fill out the form for the district council election just fine (which is a paid position, and holds more power?), but not the town council form. Did you forget where you lived in between papers?

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 7 2011, 07:02 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Apr 4 2011, 07:57 PM)
Not me. I'll be canvassing for the Labour candidates in the Falkland ward.

Posted by: JeffG Apr 7 2011, 08:04 AM

I don't quite see what something Simon Kirby said has to to with oldharry's intentions.

Anyway, he (oldharry) admits to being a UKIP supporter.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 7 2011, 08:40 AM

The moral is, read everything before you sign it.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 7 2011, 05:32 PM

Sorry Richard, I still don't understand why you are disqualified. You only need one method of qualification, so if you ticked 'D' what is the problem?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 7 2011, 05:39 PM

I guess he was disqualified for making a false statement.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 7 2011, 06:01 PM

How can I explain this so you understand?

I goofed

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 7 2011, 06:06 PM

RG gave a false address? That seems unlikely.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 7 2011, 06:06 PM

It's the season for that, seemingly.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 7 2011, 06:08 PM

Er, no, he signed a 'solemn' statement that was not true. I believe he must have put his address in the wrong bit. He was daft, but then the form is also.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 7 2011, 06:12 PM

He didn't give a false address - he declared that he had worked or lived in the ward for the last year, whereas he had done neither. He should have declared that he lived/worked within 4.8km of the ward for the last year.

Sounds easy to get wrong - but it isn't; all you have to do is tick the appropriate box.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 7 2011, 06:14 PM

That's an outrageous thing to say. It sounds very difficult to get wrong.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 7 2011, 06:15 PM

If the form is like this one then you are wrong about a tick box.

http://www.hermitage.org.uk/files/parish_council_nomination_form.pdf

If this is the form, then it is daft.

The daft thing is, RG qualifies, but like we have said, he needs to pay much more attention to detail in his efforts. This could have meant the difference to a CCTV network working correctly or not.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 7 2011, 06:32 PM

Okay it's not 'tick the box' it's 'fill in your address on the appropriate line' - the one that describes how you qualify.

Fortunately it will have no effect on the CCTV as that is a WBC concern - and he has managed to get registered for election to WBC.

Posted by: JeffG Apr 7 2011, 06:32 PM

Don't patronise me.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 7 2011, 07:50 PM

If the system was to determine how careful one is, then it might be a good idea, but if it is to determine who is legitimate or not, then it has failed for those that are careless. RG is entitled to stand, but failed on a technicality. It seems RG raised the issue at the time but was told it was OK. I would imagine RG would have redone the form if he had known that it would be invalidated.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 7 2011, 08:48 PM

Correct. I couldn't fill it in until my two nominators were both present. When the second turned up, I asked what statement I should complete as it was a few minutes to twelve and I had someone standing over me waiting to take the form. They said any as I would be "alright", so I went to the first one which I had filled on the district form. It would have helped if I had read the form, but time was of the essence. Rule number 1 when signing something: Read it first.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 7 2011, 09:18 PM

Sorry Richard, I still don't understand. You filled out 'D' and you qualify through 'D'. So why were you disqualified. And why if you qualify for WBC's speen ward don't you qualify for NTC's Falkland ward?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 7 2011, 09:31 PM

Sorry, I filled B, when I should of done C or D. Basically, if I had read the form, I would of done it correctly, so I can't blame anyone but myself.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 7 2011, 09:33 PM

I found it so easy to say, and it rather ends the issue. Do you think it might catch on?

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 7 2011, 09:36 PM

I was 'patronising' myself. Coughing to having got it wrong. Not easy to recognise on here, I know, but it can happen and it just did.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 7 2011, 10:25 PM

Catch on? Poor Jeff didn't even understand what happened, bless him.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 7 2011, 10:25 PM

*sorry, pressed the button too many times*

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 7 2011, 10:41 PM

Ah, but are you pressing the right buttons?

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 8 2011, 07:38 AM

You mean it is similar to a Councillor asking a question of someone & acting on the reply given?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 8 2011, 09:07 AM

Yup.

Posted by: Shabba Apr 10 2011, 09:46 AM

@RG This may be a silly question, but why was it a few minutes to 12 when you were filling it in? Wouldn't it have been better to have filled it in the previous week when you could have taken your time over it?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 10 2011, 03:25 PM

I wasn't sure whether I was going to stand or not, and then I had decided to stand up in Speen Ward for the Parish council too. It was only when we were at the council buildings that I decided to stick in a nomination for Falkland instead.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 10 2011, 03:27 PM

Turns out the Green Party tried to nominate six people on Monday, and when they handed the paperwork in, guess what form they were missing??? As a result, they have nobody standing now.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 10 2011, 03:41 PM

So this ensures local mafia are safe to rule roughshod over Newbury again?

Is this a conspiracy do we need an inquiry or is it just business as usual for the selective few?

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 10 2011, 03:47 PM

While it is a shame there is not the range of candidates their might be, I remain opined that if they cannot sort their paperwork to stand I have little faith in their competence to make decisions in Council.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 10 2011, 04:11 PM

I'd say it was ****-up rather than conspiracy, but yes, the establishment chair-moisteners look set for another four years, though I think that's just democracy in action. You'll struggle to find half a dozen people in the whole of Newbury who have an active interest in seeing NTC improve its game.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 10 2011, 07:27 PM

Newbury is full-up with Tories and 'Champagne Liberals', so I see little change for quite sometime.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 10 2011, 07:36 PM

But the Tories still couldn't find enough people willing to stand for NTC - at a time when Cameron is promising them more influence (I hesitate to call it power).

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 10 2011, 07:40 PM

No different than the incumbent lot then? So Newbury just carries on as usual; ruled by the local mafia!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 10 2011, 09:45 PM

I've found http://westberkslibdems.org.uk/en/page/manifesto-2011, and http://www.newburylabourparty.org/west-berks-manifesto, but I can't find anything from the other parties/individuals, and and I can't find anyone with a manifesto for NTC. If you find something can you post it please.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 11 2011, 05:23 AM

It takes a bit of searching:
http://westberksconservatives.yourcllr.com/2011/04/05/think-local-act-local/
The words change, but the content is not hugely different from the LD one.

I suspect there will be no such document for NTC because Parish Councils are normally not party-led. The manifesto is the broad objectives of a PC

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 11 2011, 11:20 AM

Just one single passing reference to the Big Society. Almost as though they're embarrassed about it.

Posted by: Bofem Apr 11 2011, 12:40 PM

Not quite the same - though both equally patronising

What I don't follow is Lib Dem pledge to listen to the public, when in the same document they promise a Cold War Museum for Greenham. Who asked for that?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 11 2011, 02:35 PM

Are the Lib Dems committed to keeping all day centres open? or just three of those which are closing?

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 11 2011, 05:22 PM

LD members are 'public', surely? They also led on the provision of the 'Peace' Garden as I remember.....

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 11 2011, 05:22 PM

Not a scoobie. Perhaps you'd like to tell us?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Apr 11 2011, 05:29 PM

They have committed to three in their manifesto, five in the media?

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 11 2011, 05:35 PM

You don't say? Perhaps things are looking up? It could be 10 new ones by next week.

Really, these are questions that should be asked of the Party, not rhetoric thrown to the masses.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 12 2011, 09:16 AM

That would be Blake.

Posted by: Strafin Apr 12 2011, 04:00 PM

I have heard a lot of calls for there to be some sort of memorial after they started spending money on other "tributes". Also people seem to think that the old control tower could be used to house some sort of museum.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 12 2011, 09:22 PM

I understand that the control tower is doing serious duty as a bat roost, it is illegal to disturb bats under the countryside act.