Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Liberal Democrats retain control of Newbury Town Council
Posted by: Criddleback May 6 2011, 09:10 PM
Final result: LibDems 12 seats, Conservatives 11 seats.
LibDems won a seat in St Johns and lost one in Brummel Grove.
Tories won a seat in Brummel and lost one in St Johns.
So LibDems hold:
Victoria - 4 seats
Northcroft - 4
Pyle Hill - 2
Clay Hill - 1
St Johns - 1
Conservatives hold:
Falkland - 4
Clay Hill - 3
St Johns - 3
Brummel Grove - 1
Posted by: blackdog May 7 2011, 12:29 AM
QUOTE (Criddleback @ May 6 2011, 10:10 PM) 
Final result: LibDems 12 seats, Conservatives 11 seats.
LibDems won a seat in St Johns and lost one in Brummel Grove.
Tories won a seat in Brummel and lost one in St Johns.
LibDems won a seat in St Johns and lost one in Brummel Grove.
Tories won a seat in Brummel and lost one in St Johns.
If the Tories could have found a 4th candidate for St John's they would be in control - why on earth did they put up candidates in wards where they would probably lose and go in one short in a ward where they could expect to win all 4 seats?
Posted by: Criddleback May 7 2011, 06:56 AM
QUOTE (blackdog @ May 7 2011, 01:29 AM)
If the Tories could have found a 4th candidate for St John's they would be in control - why on earth did they put up candidates in wards where they would probably lose and go in one short in a ward where they could expect to win all 4 seats?
It's utterably unfathomable. I understand that there was a fair amount of joy in the LibDem camp when they saw the nominations and saw that they had won a seat without doing a thing except nominate a candidate.
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 7 2011, 08:31 AM
Oh well, congratulations to the Lib Dems for retaining control of one council. I understand that Thatcham has gone blue from what people were saying just before I left the Racecourse?
Anyone got a list of town councillors in Thatcham?
Posted by: Criddleback May 7 2011, 10:33 AM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 7 2011, 09:31 AM)
Oh well, congratulations to the Lib Dems for retaining control of one council. I understand that Thatcham has gone blue from what people were saying just before I left the Racecourse?
Anyone got a list of town councillors in Thatcham?
Anyone got a list of town councillors in Thatcham?
Thatcham Town Council has not gone blue. The Liberal Democrats have retained control.
Posted by: Bofem May 7 2011, 12:58 PM
Big shame that NTC isn't under new management. It's equally unfathomable to many why the Lib Dems are not against the pavilion that no one asked for.
Now's the chance for NTC's Libs to support the emerging action group.
Posted by: Cognosco May 7 2011, 01:15 PM
QUOTE (Bofem @ May 7 2011, 01:58 PM)
Big shame that NTC isn't under new management. It's equally unfathomable to many why the Lib Dems are not against the pavilion that no one asked for.
Now's the chance for NTC's Libs to support the emerging action group.
Now's the chance for NTC's Libs to support the emerging action group.
Are you still under the illusion that councillors have any say in the matter over what a developer wants?
Next you will come up with the outrageous suggestion that the coucillors listen to what the taxpayers want?
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 7 2011, 01:15 PM
QUOTE (Bofem @ May 7 2011, 12:58 PM)
Big shame that NTC isn't under new management. It's equally unfathomable to many why the Lib Dems are not against the pavilion that no one asked for.
Now's the chance for NTC's Libs to support the emerging action group.
Now's the chance for NTC's Libs to support the emerging action group.
Correct. We need a cross party campaign against it, in addition to a non political campaign my members of the public and friends of the park.
Posted by: Cognosco May 7 2011, 01:18 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 7 2011, 02:15 PM)
Correct. We need a cross party campaign against it, in addition to a non political campaign my members of the public and friends of the park.
Elections over and done with now so they will press on and get it built as soon as possible. What developers want.... developers get...
Posted by: Andy Capp May 7 2011, 01:19 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 7 2011, 02:15 PM)
Correct. We need a cross party campaign against it, in addition to a non political campaign my members of the public and friends of the park.
'We need'? Perhaps we should just not bother. Few are.
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 7 2011, 02:51 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 7 2011, 01:19 PM)
'We need'? Perhaps we should just not bother. Few are.
I think the public are generally against it, from what they have told us.
Posted by: Simon Kirby May 7 2011, 03:07 PM
Does the pavilion have anything to do with NTC? The story as I understand it is that the bit of land that WBC want to build on was not leased to NTC. I suggest that NTC have enough to keep themselves busy finding a commercial operator for the charter market, handing the Christmas lights over to the TCP, scaling back the opulance of a £100k mayor, finding out what all that petrol gets used for at the cemetary, cutting out the profit from the councillors' milage allowance, putting a floral display together that justifies the new budget, spinning the bad news about the crack snafu, plus other challenges too I expect. It took them a year to buy some grit bins; any one of these things could occupy them for the whole of the next term.
Posted by: Cognosco May 7 2011, 03:22 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 7 2011, 04:07 PM)
Does the pavilion have anything to do with NTC? The story as I understand it is that the bit of land that WBC want to build on was not leased to NTC. I suggest that NTC have enough to keep themselves busy finding a commercial operator for the charter market, handing the Christmas lights over to the TCP, scaling back the opulance of a £100k mayor, finding out what all that petrol gets used for at the cemetary, cutting out the profit from the councillors' milage allowance, putting a floral display together that justifies the new budget, spinning the bad news about the crack snafu, plus other challenges too I expect. It took them a year to buy some grit bins; any one of these things could occupy them for the whole of the next term.
Not to mention trying to get back in favour with the voters? Going to be hard not to get wiped out after the next general election, especially if the coalition does not last much longer, we have not even started on the real cuts yet?
No one voted for massive cuts and the turmoil of the NHS reforms, the EMA, etc etc. They only got in because voters did not want the Tory right wingers in and were fed up with Labour.
I am led to believe that in a lot of wards there were only two choices Cons or Lib Liars to vote for so Hobsons choice only really. Oh for democracy in dear old West Berkshire eh? Any one any idea on the percentage of voters that turned out?
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 7 2011, 04:59 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 7 2011, 03:22 PM)
Not to mention trying to get back in favour with the voters? Going to be hard not to get wiped out after the next general election, especially if the coalition does not last much longer, we have not even started on the real cuts yet?
No one voted for massive cuts and the turmoil of the NHS reforms, the EMA, etc etc. They only got in because voters did not want the Tory right wingers in and were fed up with Labour.
I am led to believe that in a lot of wards there were only two choices Cons or Lib Liars to vote for so Hobsons choice only really. Oh for democracy in dear old West Berkshire eh? Any one any idea on the percentage of voters that turned out?
No one voted for massive cuts and the turmoil of the NHS reforms, the EMA, etc etc. They only got in because voters did not want the Tory right wingers in and were fed up with Labour.
I am led to believe that in a lot of wards there were only two choices Cons or Lib Liars to vote for so Hobsons choice only really. Oh for democracy in dear old West Berkshire eh? Any one any idea on the percentage of voters that turned out?
I think I saw 48% mentioned somewhere?
Posted by: Cognosco May 7 2011, 06:56 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 7 2011, 05:59 PM)
I think I saw 48% mentioned somewhere?
So they get into power with only approx of 1/3 of the electorate voting for them then?
Fair?Posted by: Criddleback May 7 2011, 08:00 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 7 2011, 07:56 PM)
So they get into power with only approx of 1/3 of the electorate voting for them then? Fair?
Fair?I agree.It is unfair. We should have proportional voting systems. But I don't agree with compulsory voting which is the only way I can think that you could get the other 52% who didn't vote to vote. They all had voting cards sent to them. They had the option of having postal votes by filling out a form which takes 10 seconds to fill out. They had ample warning and were reminded many times through various media. Or are you saying that because 52% of people can't be arsed to fill out a form and post a ballot, or walk a few minutes to vote, then that invalidates the whole democratic process of this country? That's radical.
Posted by: Strafin May 7 2011, 08:54 PM
Or you could say that 52% voted for all the candidates, so the rest casted the deciding votes.
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 7 2011, 09:23 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ May 7 2011, 08:54 PM)
Or you could say that 52% voted for all the candidates, so the rest casted the deciding votes.
There is so much apathy in West Berkshire, and it is rightly justified. Politicians are truly hated at present, mainly because of what our MP's have done in the past few years with expenses etc.
Posted by: CharlieF May 7 2011, 10:37 PM
QUOTE (Criddleback @ May 7 2011, 09:00 PM)
I agree.It is unfair. We should have proportional voting systems. But I don't agree with compulsory voting which is the only way I can think that you could get the other 52% who didn't vote to vote. They all had voting cards sent to them. They had the option of having postal votes by filling out a form which takes 10 seconds to fill out. They had ample warning and were reminded many times through various media. Or are you saying that because 52% of people can't be arsed to fill out a form and post a ballot, or walk a few minutes to vote, then that invalidates the whole democratic process of this country? That's radical.
I think there is a bigger issue even than that. There is a sizable number of people who have actively disenfranchised themselves and are not registered anywhere to vote. They are not illegal immigrants but they are hiding because they are afraid of being traced - by abusive partners, stalkers, debt collectors etc.
Posted by: Strafin May 7 2011, 10:49 PM
People who owe money....
Posted by: CharlieF May 7 2011, 10:54 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ May 7 2011, 11:49 PM)
People who owe money....
Indeed or who are abused and afraid...
Posted by: user23 May 8 2011, 07:34 AM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 7 2011, 03:51 PM)
I think the public are generally against it, from what they have told us.
Yes, but from what the public had told you, you thought Labour had a chance of taking control of the council.Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2011, 07:41 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ May 8 2011, 08:34 AM)
Yes, but from what the public had told you, you thought Labour had a chance of taking control of the council.
I have never heard any candidate talk-down their chances in an election.
Posted by: Criddleback May 8 2011, 08:46 AM
QUOTE (CharlieF @ May 7 2011, 11:37 PM)
I think there is a bigger issue even than that. There is a sizable number of people who have actively disenfranchised themselves and are not registered anywhere to vote. They are not illegal immigrants but they are hiding because they are afraid of being traced - by abusive partners, stalkers, debt collectors etc.
Agreed Charlie - and that is a tragedy because by just ticking one simple box on the registration form their name will be witheld from any publicly available electoral list (the edited list).
Posted by: user23 May 8 2011, 09:02 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 8 2011, 08:41 AM)
I have never heard any candidate talk-down their chances in an election.
I've never heard them get it so amazingly wrong, not locally anyway.It was a real "Kinnock in 92" moment.
Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2011, 09:11 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ May 8 2011, 10:02 AM)
I've never heard them get it so amazingly wrong, not locally anyway.
It was a real "Kinnock in 92" moment.
It was a real "Kinnock in 92" moment.
You don't remember David Steele's 'prepare for governemnt' speech?
You mischievously 'encourage' people to stand for what they believe, only to seemingly 'enjoy' knocking them if unsuccessful.
Posted by: user23 May 8 2011, 09:15 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 8 2011, 10:11 AM)
You don't remember David Steele's 'prepare for governemnt' speech?
You mischievously 'encourage' people to stand for what they believe, only to seemingly 'enjoy' knocking them if unsuccessful.
Perhaps if what someone believes is so outlandishly wild and off the mark they deserve to be "knocked"?You mischievously 'encourage' people to stand for what they believe, only to seemingly 'enjoy' knocking them if unsuccessful.
They certainly did this to Kinnock and Steele.
Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2011, 09:18 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ May 8 2011, 10:15 AM)
Perhaps if what someone believes is so outlandishly wild and off the mark they deserve to be "knocked"?
Why? It seems to be something you enjoy doing and it is not very dignified of you.
Posted by: Cognosco May 8 2011, 09:34 AM
QUOTE (Criddleback @ May 7 2011, 09:00 PM)
I agree.It is unfair. We should have proportional voting systems. But I don't agree with compulsory voting which is the only way I can think that you could get the other 52% who didn't vote to vote. They all had voting cards sent to them. They had the option of having postal votes by filling out a form which takes 10 seconds to fill out. They had ample warning and were reminded many times through various media. Or are you saying that because 52% of people can't be arsed to fill out a form and post a ballot, or walk a few minutes to vote, then that invalidates the whole democratic process of this country? That's radical.
Most common reason I have been given is "I don't want any of them so not bothering voting". The other reason is "it is not the MP's who run the country but the financial sector and the banks but not one is willing to take them on to make changes".
Also a lot of people only vote for a candidate not because he thinks he/she is the right person to do the job but purely to stop the one person they don't want to get voted in. I think this is why the Lib Liars paid the price nationally this time? They were voted for to stop the Tory right getting in but then allowed them to take control by going into coalition with them.
Also as Richard Garvie states the general public are so disillusioned with politicians that they are treated with the same contempt as double glazing salesmen.
Don't have the answer to the problem but I do believe things will have to change and the sooner the better?
Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2011, 09:45 AM
On the other hand, maybe people are simply content with things and don't feel the need to vote; secure in the knowledge that the people that do, will vote for a reasonable person.
Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2011, 09:53 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ May 8 2011, 10:15 AM)
They certainly did this to Kinnock and Steele.
Until something happens, no-one can be sure. While RG spoke of wish to take control of the council, I am sure deep down that he knew this wouldn't happen.
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 8 2011, 09:54 AM
I agree with User23 to a certain extent. I personally said that on the returns, we were going to do really well. It became clear in the week of the election that we needed a big turn out to take some seats. When we looked at likelyhood to vote, those who were certain to vote were typically blue and wanted to vote no to AV. A lot of those who said they would vote for Labour had said they were either not fussed about the AV vote or they would probably vote against it. But the likelyhood to vote was much lower.
As I've said before, I've learned so much from my first election campaign, likelyhood to vote will certainly be something I look at in the run up to an election so that we focus on trying to get those people out to vote. Labour HQ wanted to increase the vote on 2007 and maybe if we could even beat the general election total, that would be a fantastic achievement based on the result from 2010 where we lost a deposit. We got almost 10% of the vote, up from a couple of percent in 2007. The party are obviously delighted. My own opinion though is that to stop the things that we have campaigned against, we needed to win the council and that hasn't happened. But from being a bit gutted about not winning seats, the fact we have smashed all internal predictions has been a massive shot in the arm and shows we are making big process. Remember: I only joined the party six months ago and Rome wasn't built in a day.
Posted by: Cognosco May 8 2011, 10:04 AM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 8 2011, 10:54 AM)
I agree with User23 to a certain extent. I personally said that on the returns, we were going to do really well. It became clear in the week of the election that we needed a big turn out to take some seats. When we looked at likelyhood to vote, those who were certain to vote were typically blue and wanted to vote no to AV. A lot of those who said they would vote for Labour had said they were either not fussed about the AV vote or they would probably vote against it. But the likelyhood to vote was much lower.
As I've said before, I've learned so much from my first election campaign, likelyhood to vote will certainly be something I look at in the run up to an election so that we focus on trying to get those people out to vote. Labour HQ wanted to increase the vote on 2007 and maybe if we could even beat the general election total, that would be a fantastic achievement based on the result from 2010 where we lost a deposit. We got almost 10% of the vote, up from a couple of percent in 2007. The party are obviously delighted. My own opinion though is that to stop the things that we have campaigned against, we needed to win the council and that hasn't happened. But from being a bit gutted about not winning seats, the fact we have smashed all internal predictions has been a massive shot in the arm and shows we are making big process. Remember: I only joined the party six months ago and Rome wasn't built in a day.
As I've said before, I've learned so much from my first election campaign, likelyhood to vote will certainly be something I look at in the run up to an election so that we focus on trying to get those people out to vote. Labour HQ wanted to increase the vote on 2007 and maybe if we could even beat the general election total, that would be a fantastic achievement based on the result from 2010 where we lost a deposit. We got almost 10% of the vote, up from a couple of percent in 2007. The party are obviously delighted. My own opinion though is that to stop the things that we have campaigned against, we needed to win the council and that hasn't happened. But from being a bit gutted about not winning seats, the fact we have smashed all internal predictions has been a massive shot in the arm and shows we are making big process. Remember: I only joined the party six months ago and Rome wasn't built in a day.
It needs a good opposition to keep a good council on its toes and not to let the council get complacent.
Do not just knock them for the sake of it but give encouragement when they do something worthwhile.
But make sure you give them H-E-L-L when they get it wrong and ensure everyone gets to hear about the abuses of power and dodgy dealings that has been going on over the last few years.
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 8 2011, 10:41 AM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 8 2011, 10:04 AM)
It needs a good opposition to keep a good council on its toes and not to let the council get complacent.
Do not just knock them for the sake of it but give encouragement when they do something worthwhile.
But make sure you give them H-E-L-L when they get it wrong and ensure everyone gets to hear about the abuses of power and dodgy dealings that has been going on over the last few years.
Do not just knock them for the sake of it but give encouragement when they do something worthwhile.
But make sure you give them H-E-L-L when they get it wrong and ensure everyone gets to hear about the abuses of power and dodgy dealings that has been going on over the last few years.
Spot on.
Posted by: dannyboy May 8 2011, 11:02 AM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 7 2011, 07:56 PM)
So they get into power with only approx of 1/3 of the electorate voting for them then? Fair?
Fair?Of course it is fair.
Posted by: Cognosco May 8 2011, 11:14 AM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 8 2011, 12:02 PM)
Of course it is fair.
Explanation for why?
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 8 2011, 11:30 AM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 8 2011, 11:14 AM)
Explanation for why?
It's fair because everyone is entitled to vote for each seat in their ward. If people choose not to vote, that is their right. In my opinion, the winner should be the person with the most votes cast. So by that token, the result is fair.
Posted by: Cognosco May 8 2011, 11:49 AM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 8 2011, 12:30 PM)
It's fair because everyone is entitled to vote for each seat in their ward. If people choose not to vote, that is their right. In my opinion, the winner should be the person with the most votes cast. So by that token, the result is fair.
But like in my case there were only two parties to vote for Con or Lib Liars and I wanted neither. Ergo did not vote.
Are you saying I should have voted for someone I did not want?
The only way is for there to be some way of selecting non of the above and if the majority of voters select this option then we will know for sure that things much change. Any suggestions as to how to overcome this very serious problem?
Posted by: CharlieF May 8 2011, 12:36 PM
QUOTE (Criddleback @ May 8 2011, 09:46 AM)
Agreed Charlie - and that is a tragedy because by just ticking one simple box on the registration form their name will be witheld from any publicly available electoral list (the edited list).
That wouldn't help. It is the full register that is available to credit reference agencies. And the credit agencies records are searchable by their customers, who could be anyone not just financial institutions.
By selecting to be on the edited register you are merely saying you don't want to be contacted for marketing purposes.
So basically the electoral roll can be used to trace anyone who is on it.
QUOTE
#
Myth: When I register to vote my details will be passed on to lots of marketing companies
Truth: There are two versions of the electoral register – the full version and the edited version. The full register is used only for elections, preventing and detecting crime and checking applications for financial credit. The edited register is available for general sale and can be used for commercial activities like marketing. When you register to vote, you can choose to tick a box to opt out of the edited register, which means your details will not be used in this way. http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/why_should_i_register_to_vot1/myths__ni_version.aspx
Myth: When I register to vote my details will be passed on to lots of marketing companies
Truth: There are two versions of the electoral register – the full version and the edited version. The full register is used only for elections, preventing and detecting crime and checking applications for financial credit. The edited register is available for general sale and can be used for commercial activities like marketing. When you register to vote, you can choose to tick a box to opt out of the edited register, which means your details will not be used in this way. http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/why_should_i_register_to_vot1/myths__ni_version.aspx
Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2011, 03:31 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 8 2011, 12:30 PM)
It's fair because everyone is entitled to vote for each seat in their ward. If people choose not to vote, that is their right. In my opinion, the winner should be the person with the most votes cast. So by that token, the result is fair.
Which is contrary to Labour's manifesto, and all the other turn coats in your party.
Posted by: user23 May 8 2011, 03:39 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 8 2011, 04:31 PM)
Which is contrary to Labour's manifesto, and all the other turn coats in your party.
And the way Labour elect their leader.Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2011, 03:42 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ May 8 2011, 04:39 PM)
And the way Labour elect their leader.
And the Tories. Lying Bs.
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 8 2011, 04:48 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 8 2011, 03:31 PM)
Which is contrary to Labour's manifesto, and all the other turn coats in your party.
My understanding is that Labour proposed a referendum on AV? Personally, I don't think AV was any better than what we have now, in fact it was possibly worse. Just because it a referendum was proposed by the national party, it doesn't mean all of the Labour members would have to vote for it. How many Lib Dem members and MP's voted no? I'm sure there were some!!!
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 8 2011, 04:49 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ May 8 2011, 03:39 PM)
And the way Labour elect their leader.
As I said last year, the fact we used AV to elect our leader was a bad decision. We now have Ed instead of David!!!
Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2011, 04:56 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 8 2011, 05:48 PM)
My understanding is that Labour proposed a referendum on AV? Personally, I don't think AV was any better than what we have now, in fact it was possibly worse.
Why is AV worse?
Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2011, 04:56 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 8 2011, 05:49 PM)
As I said last year, the fact we used AV to elect our leader was a bad decision. We now have Ed instead of David!!!
Who wrote Labour's last manifesto (before you had to elect your leader and presumably a manifesto your 'preferred' leader subscribed to)? And you are their rep in Newbury, yet you dis your 'leader'. That'll work. Thank the Lord Labour have nothing to do with Newbury. Look what they did to Reading town centre; well your mates the Tories and Lib Dems are on the way to doing the same here.
Posted by: NWNREADER May 8 2011, 05:15 PM
Hold hard, chaps.....
I'm not exactly a defender of RG but surely it is better that the members of a political party demonstrate a breadth of thinking rather than meekly toeing the line? The members form the policy, not the party directs the members.
In any case, as AV has been given the heave-ho it is reasonable that the (up to now) obedient lines become more open.
Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2011, 05:24 PM
I quite agree, but when you pin your flag to a party, you are essentially signing up. As for AV, yes, people didn't want it, but I have yet to hear one intellectually sensible reason why it isn't a good idea, or not better than FPTP.
I think RG means well, but he is politicly clumsy and ambiguous. Allowing a photo to be taken 'playing' with the opposition does not look good; it's flippant. I wonder what people who voted for him thought when weeks earlier he was knocking him for 'putting the elderly out on the street'. RG needs to wise up if he is to be a serious opposition.
PS - he is also a breath of fresh air, as despite what I have said above, he is miles more evocative than the lame Lib Dems.
Posted by: Simon Kirby May 8 2011, 05:38 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 8 2011, 05:49 PM)
As I said last year, the fact we used AV to elect our leader was a bad decision. We now have Ed instead of David!!!
You think David Milliband would have been any better? He's prettier than his brother, but no more substantial? Ed Balls would have made Labour a genuine, credible, substantial alternative to the Tories, and that's our loss, not yours.
Posted by: Simon Kirby May 8 2011, 05:52 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 8 2011, 06:24 PM)
PS - he is also a breath of fresh air, as despite what I have said above, he is miles more evocative than the lame Lib Dems.
Indeed. The Limp Demerols did rather well in Newbury considering the caning they got nationally, but they've sold out whatever principles they might have had and and it's impossible to take them seriously. WBC needs the balance of an effective opposition and the grandstanding handbags-at-dawn that we've had is hopeless - even RG was a more affective opposition from the sidelines.
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 8 2011, 08:26 PM
Andy, all I am saying is that AV appears to me to be less fair. I think I would still choose FPTP over the other options that are out there too, it's just my preference and I believe it's fairer. I can see why some people want AV, and why some people want PR, but it's just not for me.
As for nailing my flag to the party, I'm Labour because they best represent me and my political beliefs. Coming from a poor family, in a town that was left to rot in the 80's and 90's under a Tory council and Government, I've seen how that town transformed under Labour. But does that mean I agree with everything Labour has done prior to me joining nationally or in Reading? Does it mean I agree with everything they are doing now? No it doesn't. I wouldn't say that I am dissing Ed, but the evidence would suggest Labour need to do a lot more to win over sceptical voters on National issues. We didn't really lose that many voters in Scotland, we just didn't win the votes lost by the Lib Dems, and those votes are essential if we are to take power at the next general election.
Simon: Ed Balls is a good person for the Labour Party to have in the shadow cabinet, but as a PM? I think DM was the man out of the five because he had a very credible plan to lead the party and also to revitalise the grassroots. Ed M has talked about winning in the south, but what has he done thus far to achieve it? There is a lot more work to do before we can go back to Government, but locally, that shouldn't stop Labour from becoming the credible alternative to the Tories on local issues.
West Berkshire has been stale for a long time, and what I want to do with our branch of the Labour Party is to actually represent what the people here want, rather than what is demanded by a select few people.
Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2011, 10:17 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 8 2011, 09:26 PM)
Andy, all I am saying is that AV appears to me to be less fair. I think I would still choose FPTP over the other options that are out there too, it's just my preference and I believe it's fairer. I can see why some people want AV, and why some people want PR, but it's just not for me.
Why in your view is it less fair? For me FPTP is appropriate in a two horse race, but simply doesn't suit a three or more, horse race.
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 8 2011, 09:26 PM)
As for nailing my flag to the party, I'm Labour because they best represent me and my political beliefs.
Trying to build a Labour party in West Berks will simply help cement a Tory administration.
Posted by: Simon Kirby May 8 2011, 10:27 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 8 2011, 11:17 PM)
Trying to build a Labour party in West Berks will simply help cement a Tory administration.
I don't have any great idological problem with a tory administration, the problem at WBC is that there is no effective opposition. The Lib Dems can't do it, so maybe Labour might get their chance. They didn't win any seats, but with getting on 10% of the vote RG has created a credible platform to speak from. Whether he can build an effective party around that is all to play for.
Posted by: blackdog May 8 2011, 11:04 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 8 2011, 11:17 PM)
Trying to build a Labour party in West Berks will simply help cement a Tory administration.
Yes, that's the problem with First Past The Post.
However, as a Tory administration is pretty much the same as a Lib Dem administration perhaps it's worth a few years of Tory rule while Labour have a go at replacing the LDs.
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 9 2011, 07:07 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 8 2011, 10:17 PM)
Why in your view is it less fair? For me FPTP is appropriate in a two horse race, but simply doesn't suit a three or more, horse race.
In Newbury, I wouldn't mind AV in terms of helping Labour. It's no more representative, proportionate that FPTP, you don't need 50% to elect an MP, it's no easier to recall an MP. What are the benefits of AV? Also, 79 and 97 would have returned even bigger majorities than what they actually did, so I'd even say that AV is slightly unstable.
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 8 2011, 10:17 PM)
Trying to build a Labour party in West Berks will simply help cement a Tory administration.
Newbury / West Berkshire cannot sustain three parties. That is clear now. I would rather it was a Labour and Tory marginal, and I'm not going to just give up just because I might unintentionally help the tories in certain wards. If the two party system was working here, I would never have got involved in the first place. My own personal goal is to hold the administration to account, whether we have seats or not.
Posted by: Criddleback May 9 2011, 07:36 AM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 8 2011, 05:49 PM)
As I said last year, the fact we used AV to elect our leader was a bad decision. We now have Ed instead of David!!!
Actually, if the Labour leadership election had been held using a straightforward system of one person one vote first past the post, Ed Miliband would have beaten David Miliband by 125,649 to 114,205.
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 9 2011, 08:06 AM
QUOTE (Criddleback @ May 9 2011, 07:36 AM)
Actually, if the Labour leadership election had been held using a straightforward system of one person one vote first past the post, Ed Miliband would have beaten David Miliband by 125,649 to 114,205.
If it was a two horse race. If you look at the ballot of the first round, David was the clear winner.
Posted by: Andy Capp May 9 2011, 09:30 AM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 9 2011, 08:07 AM)
It's no more representative, proportionate that FPTP
Immediately I have to disagree for reasons I have post already.
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 9 2011, 08:07 AM)
you don't need 50% to elect an MP
You see that as an advantage?
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 9 2011, 08:07 AM)
it's no easier to recall an MP
I see this as irrelevant in that it is no easier with either system.
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 9 2011, 08:07 AM)
What are the benefits of AV?
1 You could vote for your preferred choice without fear that you would inadvertently help your least favoured candidate. This could therefore encourage more independents.
2 In AV you could elect the least objectionable candidate, which in my view is more representative of the wishes of the most amount of people.
3 In key marginals, candidates would have to be more mindful of the locals' wishes.
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 9 2011, 08:07 AM)
Also, 79 and 97 would have returned even bigger majorities than what they actually did, so I'd even say that AV is slightly unstable.
Unstable?
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 9 2011, 09:40 AM
I respect your view, but I still don't agree!!! What is your "ideal world" system, would it be AV, PR or one of the others?
Posted by: Andy Capp May 9 2011, 10:15 AM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 9 2011, 10:40 AM)
I respect your view, but I still don't agree!!! What is your "ideal world" system, would it be AV, PR or one of the others?
I currently prefer AV to FPTP.
In my ideal world, people would be given a test a bit like the WBC one and you voted according to your answers, not your favourite colour, or what your dad always voted.
Posted by: dannyboy May 9 2011, 11:09 AM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 8 2011, 12:14 PM)
Explanation for why?
Exactly what RG said. One person one vote. It can't be any fairer.
And if you don't like the options open to you, you can stand yourself.
Posted by: Andy Capp May 9 2011, 11:49 AM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 9 2011, 12:09 PM)
Exactly what RG said. One person one vote. It can't be any fairer.
And if you don't like the options open to you, you can stand yourself.
And if you don't like the options open to you, you can stand yourself.
It is simple, I grant you that, but fair is subjective. It would also not be practical for everyone to stand that didn't like the options.
Posted by: Criddleback May 9 2011, 12:31 PM
"Actually, if the Labour leadership election had been held using a straightforward system of one person one vote first past the post, Ed Miliband would have beaten David Miliband by 125,649 to 114,205."
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 9 2011, 09:06 AM)
If it was a two horse race. If you look at the ballot of the first round, David was the clear winner.
David was only an alleged "clear winner" when you add up percentages (always a very, very perverse thing to do in statistical terms) rather than adding up the actual votes cast - which I think is how "First past the post" works isn't it, Richard?
Or are you saying David Miliband won by a clear margin of party members when you ignore union members? Surely you would not suggest that the union brothers and sisters should be disenfranchised from leadership elections, are you? I can't imagine you getting a particularly warm reception if you suggest that at the next Blackpool Labour party conference.
Those numbers which I quoted were the actual numbers of the first preference votes cast amongst MPs/MEPs, trade unionists and CLP members while the other contenders were in the reckoning - in the first round as you say. So if you imagine it as an "x" being written instead of a "1" and without any rounds of voting, Ed Miliband would have won by a considerable margin under a first past the post system.
All these numbers are from the Labour party's own website: http://www.labour.org.uk/results.
I've added a total per candidate column here to their numbers:
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 9 2011, 12:52 PM
You could also argue that David won the sections of Labour MP's and members, but section 3 (unions and other affiliates) went to Ed by a huge majority. I accept the result, but there were a lot of people voting in that section who are members of the Lib Dems, Greens and other political parties. My friend Chris works at Lib Dem HQ, and he voted for Ed Balls!!! But you are right, on looking at the total ballots cast, it would appear that Ed still won
Posted by: Criddleback May 9 2011, 01:01 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 9 2011, 01:52 PM)
You could also argue that David won the sections of Labour MP's and members, but section 3 (unions and other affiliates) went to Ed by a huge majority. I accept the result, but there were a lot of people voting in that section who are members of the Lib Dems, Greens and other political parties. My friend Chris works at Lib Dem HQ, and he voted for Ed Balls!!! But you are right, on looking at the total ballots cast, it would appear that Ed still won
Thank you
Posted by: CharlieF May 9 2011, 05:30 PM
QUOTE (Criddleback @ May 9 2011, 01:31 PM)
However Diane Abbott is the only one following me on Twitter!
Posted by: NWNREADER May 9 2011, 06:07 PM
QUOTE (CharlieF @ May 9 2011, 06:30 PM)
However Diane Abbott is the only one following me on Twitter!
Scary, or what?
Posted by: CharlieF May 9 2011, 06:10 PM
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 9 2011, 07:07 PM)
Scary, or what?
What her or me? Or the fact that the other Labour leadership candidates have yet to see the light...?
Posted by: user23 May 9 2011, 06:56 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 9 2011, 12:09 PM)
Exactly what RG said. One person one vote. It can't be any fairer.
And if you don't like the options open to you, you can stand yourself.
I got six votes in two ballots on Thursday and both were FPTP. And if you don't like the options open to you, you can stand yourself.
It's not always one person, one vote.
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 9 2011, 07:10 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ May 9 2011, 06:56 PM)
I got six votes in two ballots on Thursday and both were FPTP.
It's not always one person, one vote.
It's not always one person, one vote.
But you were entitled to one vote for each available seat?
Posted by: user23 May 9 2011, 07:59 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 9 2011, 08:10 PM)
But you were entitled to one vote for each available seat?
Yes, but it wasn't one person, one vote.It was one person six votes.
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 9 2011, 09:00 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ May 9 2011, 07:59 PM)
Yes, but it wasn't one person, one vote.
It was one person six votes.
It was one person six votes.
Let's compromise.
One person, one voter PER SEAT???
Posted by: On the edge May 9 2011, 09:32 PM
Must say I find the multiple seats situation quite odd. It makes for very unwieldy Councils. Equally, the main parties claim they often have to pressure people into standing. Can this lavish over provision be justified much longer?
Posted by: dannyboy May 10 2011, 08:16 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ May 9 2011, 07:56 PM)
I got six votes in two ballots on Thursday and both were FPTP.
It's not always one person, one vote.
It's not always one person, one vote.
Jeez......
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 10 2011, 08:19 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ May 9 2011, 09:32 PM)
Must say I find the multiple seats situation quite odd. It makes for very unwieldy Councils. Equally, the main parties claim they often have to pressure people into standing. Can this lavish over provision be justified much longer?
We found 41 people willing to stand. It is very difficult to find 52 genuine candidates. There is at least one town councillor who I know that got elected after being promised that they would not win. I know of a couple of district councillors who didn't want to stand, and who have never wished to be elected but were re-elected this year. It's barmy.
My suggestion would be to reduce the number of councillors to thirty, and to replace the leader and chairman roles with a directly elected mayor as it would be cheaper to run. My figures suggest we could save around £300,000 a year if we had a mayor and thirty councillors.
Posted by: NWNREADER May 10 2011, 04:49 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ May 9 2011, 08:59 PM)
Yes, but it wasn't one person, one vote.
It was one person six votes.
It was one person six votes.
How so (as you seem to be the only one who understands your maths)?
Posted by: Andy Capp May 10 2011, 05:02 PM
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 10 2011, 05:49 PM)
How so (as you seem to be the only one who understands your maths)?
One person (e.g. user23) was able to vote for 6 people?
Posted by: NWNREADER May 10 2011, 05:07 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 10 2011, 06:02 PM)
One person (e.g. user23) was able to vote for 6 people?
Only him? That would explain it!!!!
Posted by: Simon Kirby May 10 2011, 06:04 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ May 9 2011, 07:56 PM)
I got six votes in two ballots on Thursday ...
You had six people vote for you? I'm guessing they didn't know who you were.
Posted by: Andy Capp May 10 2011, 06:08 PM
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 10 2011, 06:07 PM)
Only him?
Him, and any other constituent from within the boundaries of the Newbury Town Council and its wards.
Posted by: On the edge May 10 2011, 07:42 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 10 2011, 09:19 AM)
We found 41 people willing to stand. It is very difficult to find 52 genuine candidates. There is at least one town councillor who I know that got elected after being promised that they would not win. I know of a couple of district councillors who didn't want to stand, and who have never wished to be elected but were re-elected this year. It's barmy.
My suggestion would be to reduce the number of councillors to thirty, and to replace the leader and chairman roles with a directly elected mayor as it would be cheaper to run. My figures suggest we could save around £300,000 a year if we had a mayor and thirty councillors.
My suggestion would be to reduce the number of councillors to thirty, and to replace the leader and chairman roles with a directly elected mayor as it would be cheaper to run. My figures suggest we could save around £300,000 a year if we had a mayor and thirty councillors.
That would do it - assuming a few are opposition, the number you have left is a workable number, meaning you are in real danger of doing things.
Posted by: NWNREADER May 10 2011, 08:04 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 10 2011, 07:08 PM)
Him, and any other constituent from within the boundaries of the Newbury Town Council and its wards.
Miiiaaaoooowwwwwwww......
Pass the milk?
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 10 2011, 08:51 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ May 10 2011, 07:42 PM)
That would do it - assuming a few are opposition, the number you have left is a workable number, meaning you are in real danger of doing things.
It just cuts back a bit on the gravy train.
Posted by: NWNREADER May 10 2011, 08:57 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 10 2011, 09:51 PM)
It just cuts back a bit on the gravy train.
The one you wanted to join? Or the one you wanted to stop?
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 11 2011, 07:01 AM
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 10 2011, 08:57 PM)
The one you wanted to join? Or the one you wanted to stop?
The one I wanted to join to change. In our manifesto, we clearly stated about reducing the number of elected members, reducing the council cost base and looking to reduce the amount of money spent on members and support staff.
Posted by: dannyboy May 11 2011, 08:58 AM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 11 2011, 08:01 AM)
The one I wanted to join to change. In our manifesto, we clearly stated about reducing the number of elected members, reducing the council cost base and looking to reduce the amount of money spent on members and support staff.
This would be the mainfesto that was only popular enough to get 10% of the vote?
Posted by: Simon Kirby May 11 2011, 09:10 AM
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ May 10 2011, 09:57 PM)
The one you wanted to join? Or the one you wanted to stop?
That's hardly fair is it? I'm as cynical as the next man about the motivation of politicians but RG is putting forward specific proposals to cut costs so that's no justification in a personal attack on his motives for wanting to be elected. If there's a weakness to his argument it's that it's little more than a thought plucked out of the air and a fundamental review of what we get from elected local government would be a much better place to start.
Do we for instance need education to be managed centrally by an elected body? Aren't schools already managed locally with a degree of parent (and non-parent busybody) democracy?
Do social services, environmental health, trading standards and roads maintenance managed within an elected body? The utility companies run well enough without any democratic oversight, and the police, fire service, and ambulance service manage without popular democracy.
That pretty much just leaves planning, and that does in my view need some democratic accountability, but I think we'd be better served by an agency of professional town planners deciding decisions with reference to a concise, comprehendable local plan which could be drafted by the planners and ratified by direct democracy.
So getting rid of the whole bally lot of them makes sound sense to me.
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 11 2011, 09:31 AM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 11 2011, 08:58 AM)
This would be the mainfesto that was only popular enough to get 10% of the vote?
That would be the manifesto that allowed us to significantly boost our vote to ten percent, despite only having candidates in half the available wards, yes. Despite not having any elected members, we will seek to hold the other parties to the promises they made and seek to bring our own manifesto pledges to the agenda, such as saving Victoria Park from development, lobbying for greater involvement and transparency at the district council and we will also continue to push for a more effective planning policy.
Posted by: dannyboy May 11 2011, 09:39 AM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 11 2011, 10:31 AM)
That would be the manifesto that allowed us to significantly boost our vote to ten percent, despite only having candidates in half the available wards, yes. Despite not having any elected members, we will seek to hold the other parties to the promises they made and seek to bring our own manifesto pledges to the agenda, such as saving Victoria Park from development, lobbying for greater involvement and transparency at the district council and we will also continue to push for a more effective planning policy.
But still only what 10% of people want.......
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 11 2011, 10:31 AM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 11 2011, 09:39 AM)
But still only what 10% of people want.......
I'll have to disagree on that, but you entitled to your view.
Posted by: Andy Capp May 11 2011, 10:59 AM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 11 2011, 09:58 AM)
This would be the mainfesto that was only popular enough to get 10% of the vote?
How many voters do you think read their manifesto, or indeed, any parties' manifesto? Also; I wouldn't say that not voting for a party means you reject everything they stood for.
Posted by: Turin Machine May 11 2011, 11:43 PM
But on the other hand it's hardly a ringing endorsment is it ?
Posted by: Andy Capp May 12 2011, 12:22 AM
QUOTE (Turin Machine @ May 12 2011, 12:43 AM)
But on the other hand it's hardly a ringing endorsment is it ?
That is a different argument, so rather irrelevant. Did people reject 'Newbury Labour' because they didn't fancy the manifesto. I doubt it.
Posted by: dannyboy May 12 2011, 08:01 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 12 2011, 01:22 AM)
That is a different argument, so rather irrelevant. Did people reject 'Newbury Labour' because they didn't fancy the manifesto. I doubt it.
So are you saying Newburty voters rejected Labour even though they liked the sound of what Labour planned for their town?
Posted by: dannyboy May 12 2011, 08:03 AM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 11 2011, 11:31 AM)
I'll have to disagree on that, but you entitled to your view.
Maybe it was the candidates that put people off. Surely you are not saying that the voters of Newbury are prejudiced enough to vote anything but Labour even if they like the sound of Labour's plans?
Posted by: Turin Machine May 12 2011, 09:00 AM
maybe they are just more intelligent than to make that mistake !
Posted by: Andy Capp May 12 2011, 09:21 AM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 12 2011, 09:01 AM)
So are you saying Newburty voters rejected Labour even though they liked the sound of what Labour planned for their town?
No I'm not. I'm saying that I am sceptical that people voted on purely 2011 published manifestos. I've been holding a straw poll with friends and family and I have yet to speak to someone that even knew what was on the Labour manifesto, let alone any other parties'.
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 12 2011, 09:27 AM
Danny, I'm just saying that some people still didn't vote Labour when it came to the crunch. We needed a large turn out, and it didn't happen. To go from almost nothing to 10% is a bloody good achievement.
Posted by: dannyboy May 12 2011, 09:40 AM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 12 2011, 10:27 AM)
Danny, I'm just saying that some people still didn't vote Labour when it came to the crunch. We needed a large turn out, and it didn't happen. To go from almost nothing to 10% is a bloody good achievement.
A large turnout?
Surely this favours all parties? Unless you mean that the Labour voters could not be bothered to vote.
Posted by: Turin Machine May 12 2011, 10:18 AM
We will see what happens in the next general election when I'm sure the Lib Dems will be out of the picture as far as tactical voting is concerned.
Posted by: dannyboy May 12 2011, 10:24 AM
QUOTE (Turin Machine @ May 12 2011, 11:18 AM)
We will see what happens in the next general election when I'm sure the Lib Dems will be out of the picture as far as tactical voting is concerned.
My impression is that the local Labour Party picked up people who always vote & won't vote Tory, therefore they normally vote LD in local elections, but who felt let down by LD nationally.
Posted by: Andy Capp May 12 2011, 10:55 AM
All I see is Labour taking Lib Dem votes. So Tory it is for the foreseeable future then.
Posted by: Turin Machine May 12 2011, 11:09 AM
I see that more as a protest vote against Lib Dem in principle.
Posted by: Andy Capp May 12 2011, 12:06 PM
QUOTE (Turin Machine @ May 12 2011, 12:09 PM)
I see that more as a protest vote against Lib Dem in principle.
Yes, and a stupid one at that.
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 12 2011, 01:47 PM
In some seats, we tooks votes from the Lib Dems, but in others it appears we took votes from the Tories. It's bizarre, and when you see the ballot papers it shows that to try and figure it out is impossible.
Posted by: dannyboy May 12 2011, 02:07 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 12 2011, 02:47 PM)
In some seats, we tooks votes from the Lib Dems, but in others it appears we took votes from the Tories. It's bizarre, and when you see the ballot papers it shows that to try and figure it out is impossible.
How can you tell where the votes came from ?
Posted by: Andy Capp May 12 2011, 02:52 PM
I'm unsure that I agree with RG on this. Usually, the smaller parties do better when the core vote stays in (smaller turnout). This I understand was how the Lib Dems got in at the '97 GE.
Posted by: Simon Kirby May 12 2011, 03:26 PM
QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ May 12 2011, 02:47 PM)
In some seats, we tooks votes from the Lib Dems, but in others it appears we took votes from the Tories. It's bizarre, and when you see the ballot papers it shows that to try and figure it out is impossible.
That's hardly a surprise. You'll have picked up some votes from idological Labour supporters who previously would not have thought to waste their vote on the moribund Newbury party, but I imagine you picked up more votes because the local Labour party looked like the only credible alternative to a complacent and increasingly arrogant establishment, and quite a few of those would have supported you despite you being the Labour party rather than because of it.
Posted by: Simon Kirby May 20 2011, 12:01 PM
I couldn't think who they reminded me of
but I've got it now.
Posted by: Biker1 May 20 2011, 03:25 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ May 12 2011, 03:07 PM)
How can you tell where the votes came from ?
Although you are given the impression that you vote in secret and that no-one knows who you voted for - In fact the voting slip number is written against your name on the register so any vote can be traced to who made it.
Secret ballot?
Posted by: Andy Capp May 20 2011, 04:23 PM
If I had my way, I'd make it so that people's votes were published.
Posted by: dannyboy May 20 2011, 04:48 PM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ May 20 2011, 04:25 PM)
Although you are given the impression that you vote in secret and that no-one knows who you voted for - In fact the voting slip number is written against your name on the register so any vote can be traced to who made it.
Secret ballot?
Secret ballot?
The question still stands.
Posted by: Richard Garvie May 20 2011, 07:24 PM
When they are being counted out on the table, you can see what boxes have been crossed, so some have two labour, some two tory, some one of each etc. There is no way of seeing who voted for who in terms of tracing an individual.
Posted by: NWNREADER May 21 2011, 06:34 AM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ May 20 2011, 04:25 PM)
Although you are given the impression that you vote in secret and that no-one knows who you voted for - In fact the voting slip number is written against your name on the register so any vote can be traced to who made it.
Secret ballot?
Secret ballot?
I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier - somewhere.......
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)