Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 22 2011, 07:08 PM

Where is the referendum on an elected Mayor we were promised for September?

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 22 2011, 07:18 PM

Was that from our local councils? Then don't hold your breath as they say...... They probably have found out they won't get the answer they wanted?

Posted by: xjay1337 Oct 22 2011, 07:54 PM

Yeah, where is it???????!!!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 22 2011, 09:10 PM

The petition will be handed in next March. It has taken longer than expected, with resources put towards fighting ticket office closures and other campaigns that are of immediate concern. Due to the schedules that are applied, we either have to submit September or March, so the next window is March 2012 in time for an October 2012 referendum and the elections would be the following May (2013). What may be better would be to wait until March 2014 until we submit the petition, so we have a mayor election in May 2015 if approved, in sync with the local council elections. I will keep you posted with what is decided, but it will be March at the earliest.

A press release will be put out in the next couple of weeks once I've consulted the other parties / candidates.

Posted by: user23 Oct 22 2011, 09:25 PM

September 2011 to March 2014? That's some postponement. This "other parties/candidates" thing doesn't add up either. The petition is about getting a certain number of signatures from residents.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 22 2011, 09:27 PM

To submit in September you would have needed to be good to go before that, which eliminates the Ticket Office issue as the cause of not being ready.
What were the other campaigns?
is the reality there is no rush to sign up, so those in favour are having to work harder than they would like in order to gain the required level of support (which tends to indicate there would not be the majority in favour anyway)?

Which 'other parties/candidates? I didn't know there were any candidates, let alone 'others'.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 23 2011, 09:10 AM

We already have the signatures required, I'm going to speak with Jeff Brooks and Graham Jones before deciding whether it's submitted in March coming or whether we wait until March 14 so that a mayor election would be held with the council elections.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 23 2011, 09:43 AM

If you already have the required signatures and feel so strongly, why delay? Many of those signatories may not be valid come the time - people changing their mind/moving away etc. Other will be denied the opportunity to participate.
Why discuss with the two Spawn of Satan? What is it to do with them? I very much doubt they will be keen to aid progress....

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 23 2011, 10:26 AM

Neither want a mayor, but the level of signatures has now been reached and I'd rather try and agree a timeframe than just stick it in. There may be a way to have the referendum and then implement the mayor model (if agreed) at the next election. I'm not sure if that is possible, which is why I will be speaking to them and some of the council officers etc.

My belief is that the matyor model is more effective annd accountable, and that view is one championed by the Prime Minister. He believe every unitary should have an elected mayor, so what are the current members scared of? I think if I remember correctly, the Conservative Party position (locally) is that it risks introducing personality into politics!!!

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 23 2011, 10:29 AM

Waffle.

Your tactic seems ( to me) to keep the debate live as long as possible, and not to deliver the referendum

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 23 2011, 10:41 AM

That's your view and you are entitled to it.

Posted by: user23 Oct 23 2011, 12:09 PM

Indeed. Your question, "What were the other campaigns?" was avoided also.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 23 2011, 12:17 PM

Perhaps I misread but I thought the council had taken the position of not talking to you?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 23 2011, 01:25 PM

I have to go through a legal officer.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 23 2011, 01:37 PM

There is another thread on this Forum wondering what's going on? Looking at all the negativity anyone with any spark of an idea gets, its hardly surprising is it? The labour Party (and I'm no supporter) might have a few problems right now - but at least its supporters are off their a**** getting things moving.

Instead of sitting back thinking up schoolboy blocking responses, a behaviour so beloved of the Trots back in the 70's, or claiming that every good idea is theirs, can we not have some positive remarks and perhaps some real debate?

I'm not holding my breath!

Posted by: user23 Oct 23 2011, 01:39 PM

Things won't be moving until March 2014 at the earliest, as far as this is concerned.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 23 2011, 03:50 PM

I'm sure it won't. Wars when they start are said to be over by Christmas, but usually take far longer. That doesn't stop the planning or the fighting.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 23 2011, 04:23 PM

Would this have anything to do with how efficient our local authorities are and how quickly they proceed with important matters perhaps? Especially if they are against the proposal?

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 23 2011, 04:52 PM

No.... as I understand it the decision is purely a tactical one by Richard.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 23 2011, 05:03 PM

Is this the case Richard? What are the reasons for the delay then? This contagion of breaking promises and election pledges has not spread from the Tory and LibLiars to the Newbury Labour Party surely?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 23 2011, 06:52 PM

Not at all, it's a simple fact of when we ask for the referendum. We pledged that we would deliver a referendum in our manifesto, and we will (technically, the manifesto covers us until May 2015 if we wanted to wait that long). If we hand the document in now, it means the referendum would take place in October next year, with March the final month to hand it in if we want it next October. I simply raised the point that after consultation with the other parties, we may be prepared to hand it in later in the council term to enable the mayor term to be the same as the council term (eg. elections in 2015 and then every four years as per council elections). This would also allow for the council to look at reducing the number of elected members before the mayor system is brought in.

The chances are that Graham Jones will say he doesn't want the mayor system and he doesn't care when the petition is submitted and Cllr Brooks may say the same. On that basis, the petition is ready to go in and the referendum will be in October next year.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 24 2011, 08:31 AM

Why didn't you hand it in for September?

Posted by: blackdog Oct 24 2011, 12:09 PM

Presumably the petition calls for a referendum to see if the electorate want to have an elected mayor?

If so why does the timing of the referendum matter? Presumably, if the electorate opt for an elected mayor, this would not take place until the next round of council elections anyway.

If you wait for the next council election to hold the referendum alongside it then the election for mayor could be delayed for another 4 years

Posted by: blackdog Oct 24 2011, 12:13 PM

Another point.

If you have collected enough signatures on a petition - what right have you got to delay its presentation? Presumably the signatories want to see something happen, not for you to sit on it for a year or two.

If it is delayed that long would WBC be justified in saying that it is out of date and ingoring it? Who knows, many of the signatories may have left the area, changed their minds,...

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 24 2011, 12:37 PM

If the petition goes in now, the referendum will be held in October next year. If there is a yes vote, the council is duty bound to hold elections at the next opportunity (either May or October after the vote) so if the referendum was October 2012, A mayor election would be held in May 2013. User criticised the referendum for being an extra cost burden outside the council elections cycle, so it was on that basis that we are looking to see if we can time the referendum in order to have a mayoral election in May 2015 if the public give it the green light (the referendum would need to be held October 14 to make this happen).

The chances are it will go in and the referendum will be held at the next available opportunity (October 2012) as the other parties don't want it, but at least we have taken on board some of the comments from critics to see if there is a way we can have it on the same cycle as council elections and investigated every opportunity.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 24 2011, 12:41 PM

Ahem......

Why didn't you hand it in for September?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 24 2011, 08:27 PM

Sorry, didn't read the whole thread. It was simply down to the sheer volume of work that we had on. Not just preparing for issues that will be coming out in the coming weeks and months (budget cuts, LDF, youth services, ticket offices, planning laws, planning issues in Hungerford, removal of cycle lockers at Tilehurst station, reductions in bus services, Adult Social Car issue, the TCP, the BID, the NRA constitution, the AWB etc.) but we also deal with a lot of case work from local residents too, despite the fact we have no councillors. Unfortunately, we don't have paid employees or financial support from the council like other parties, but we do a **** of a lot of work and try our best to prioritise. If we ignored everything else in favour of the mayor petition, we wouldn't be a credible opposition. As I keep saying with the finances of the council, you don't go buying additional items when you are struggling to pay the bills. The same principle applies, when you have some importnat issues that need addressed immediately, that takes precendent over something that is not seen as an essential issue. We promised we would deliver a referendum, and we will.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 24 2011, 08:46 PM

No doubt someone will research the precise statement, but 'in September' sounds right to me.

You cannot promise to deliver a referendum, as that will be done by the Council. You may deliver the petition that leads to a referendum, but I fear delaying will bring the validity of the petition into question by anyone who just doesn't want it to happen.

As regards your workload...... "Failing to Plan Properly leads to P*** Poor Performance"

And that counts for anyone. You'll thrash about on everything and succeed on nothing.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 24 2011, 08:48 PM

What on earth has the NRA constitution got to do with you? Are you on a campaign to ensure all private groups have a constitution that meets your approval? Have you got a copy of the Newbury Freemasons' constitution yet?

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 24 2011, 08:52 PM

Which Lodge?

Posted by: Turin Machine Oct 24 2011, 09:50 PM

"you don't go buying additional items when you are struggling to pay the bills" You should really have told Gordon Brown that ! By the way, the present government agrees with you, entirely.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 25 2011, 08:18 AM

Sorry, our response to the constitution which has effectively banned the press and public from meetings.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 25 2011, 08:18 AM

Nope, still not seen the TCP constitution!!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 25 2011, 08:20 AM

I wasn't a member of the party until October last year.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 25 2011, 08:29 AM

Why should they have the press or the public at their meetings? It's a retailers' association not a public body.

Out of interest, do you have the press and public at Newbury Labour committee meetings?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 25 2011, 09:24 AM

Anybody who asks to attend our meetings is welcome. We've had people approach our stalls and when we are canvassing to ask when we meet and they have came along to see what we are about. If the press wish to attend, they are more than welcome.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 25 2011, 04:03 PM

Well? Why should they?

"I wasn't a member of the party until October last year."

When you join a party yopu attach to it's history - good and not so good. Your use of this phrase sounds like slopey shoulders and does nothing to help people understand where you stand (other than a loyal member apart from the nasty bits)

And I still don't feel you have given a valid reason for not submitting the petition. Thoise who signed up may feel let down.

Posted by: Nothing Much Oct 25 2011, 04:41 PM

As there is some conversation about politics and such.
I will post a bit of family history. My dad was Ghengis Khan.
His brother was a Communist and tried to collapse a government.

It is a long time ago and they are both gone. If anyone can find "Times on Line"
through a library which might be still open. The plot in Sheffield can be viewed.
They,my uncle planned to turn off all electricity to factories and power stations!
Frank Chapell was involved on the other side.
I only know a little of those times.
hex

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 25 2011, 05:08 PM

Loyd George knew my father......

Posted by: Nothing Much Oct 25 2011, 05:33 PM

Thanks for the jibe. NWN. They might have won. Except for corruption at some point.
Then they would have really caused trouble. Scargill was a just silly hairdo.
hex

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 31 2011, 01:45 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Oct 25 2011, 09:29 AM)
Why should they have the press or the public at their meetings? It's a retailers' association not a public body.

Well? Why should they?

"I wasn't a member of the party until October last year."

When you join a party you attach to it's history - good and not so good. Your use of this phrase sounds like slopey shoulders and does nothing to help people understand where you stand (other than a loyal member apart from the nasty bits)

And I still don't feel you have given a valid reason for not submitting the petition. Those who signed up may feel let down.

Richard, me old fruit,
I realise you are a busy chap, but as you are now working mega-hours could you fit in a reply?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 31 2011, 02:04 PM

The NRA has always been transparent, why change it? t gives them credibility, at present they wouldn't dare discuss sanctions against an individual or take votes on people for a start.

As for the petition, I have no update as to when it will go in. Some people may feel let down if it doesn't go in now, and if that's the case I can only apologise to them if it doesn't go in. What I will say is that if it is not submitted, we will need to carry out a seperate petition at a later stage.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 31 2011, 03:33 PM

So submit it then!

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 31 2011, 06:21 PM

Ahem...

While you reveal some interesting failings you have not set out why the petition was not submitted in time for September.

Sounds like you admit that failing to submit it renders the existing petition unusable.

Posted by: user23 Oct 31 2011, 08:46 PM

I suspect it didn't have the required number of signatures.

Turns out Newbury Labour hasn't been working on the NRA constitution either, as previously claimed.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 31 2011, 08:56 PM

I already clarified that abuser, it was our RESPONSE to the NRA constitution. You already know this.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 31 2011, 08:57 PM

Everything has had to be put on hold to deal with the national scandal of WBC giving every asset that Newbury had to SLI for a pound and a very large wedge of cash as far into the future as can been seen. Come on keep up.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 31 2011, 09:00 PM

No Cognosco, they are not linked. But interesting that whenever the council go belly up on something, everyone starts trying to have a pop at me again!!!

Posted by: user23 Oct 31 2011, 09:09 PM

Why did you need to produce a RESPONSE to the NRA constitution, something that wasn't in your manifesto, over something that was, the petition?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 31 2011, 09:19 PM

Because the NRA meetings are something that already happen.

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

Well it is no easier to get an answer out of you than the council, for sure.......

Ahem...

While you reveal some interesting failings you have not set out why the petition was not submitted in time for September.

Sounds like you admit that failing to submit it renders the existing petition unusable.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 31 2011, 09:29 PM

Already answered it. Read the thread.

Posted by: user23 Oct 31 2011, 09:48 PM

Not enough signatures, apparently.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 31 2011, 10:18 PM

I said I did not find your answer adequate. You have not given a reason other than 'too busy' for not submitting. That answer is not acceptable, and needs further explanation. Will you be as public about not submitting as you were when you were going to?

How many signatures did you gather, please?

Do you agree failing to submit, especially without explanation, is unacceptable?

Do you agree delaying the submission renders the petition invalid?

As the actual submission process is very straightforward, can you please explain why the petition was not submitted ready for September?

Posted by: user23 Nov 1 2011, 07:49 PM

Having asked for a new thread to be started about this, Richard now seems to be avoiding questions on the subject.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 10:47 PM

Some of us give up our time to attend community meetings. I'm sorry I can't have a team of people on here all day every day trying to defend me like the council do.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 10:55 PM

Do you have the required amount of signatures? Would you give a date for when you will reply, in full, the questions asked by NWNREADER?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 10:55 PM

More than enough.

I've explained why it's not been submitted. It will go in once I have consulted the other parties to get their opinion.

Not at all, but there are guidelines that have to be adhered too.

It wasn't ready to be submitted in September, if you submit it without doing the proper diligence there is a chance that if the council rule out some signatures, you may not have enough to force the referendum. I've already told you that some things were more important. The mayor issue is something we are pushing because West Berkshire were not given the choice. The council ruled it out despite support from various organisations and respondants in the consultations, but all of those responses were ruled out because the Tories decided "that it wasn't a valid response".Let's not forget why we are suggesting the referendum in the first place, it's because the Tories fudged the consultation. But there is no point rushing something and then failing, it's always better to get it right first time (something the current council fail to do most often).

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 1 2011, 10:57 PM

Well, you demand answers - often with good grounds - so you must expect to deliver in the same vein.

Team of people defending WBC? Names?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 11:02 PM

What I mean is that I have a life too, I can't be on here 24 / 7. As soon as I don't post for what must be a few hours, I'm accused of not answering questions. I always try to answer every question if it's possible to do so. The reason I get annoyed at Phil is because he very rarely answers any question posed to him.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 1 2011, 11:10 PM

So no team, then?

The price of being a (wannabe) public representative, especially one who criticises others for not being responsive, is that you can end up hoist by your own petard.
My issue is not whether you answer in a few hours, but whether you answer at all. So often your responses do not answer the question posed....... You lack transparency.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 11:14 PM

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. I'd say if there was a viote on who is more transparent between me and the council, I'd win by a country mile. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I certainly try to be. Anyway, as there is no further question in that post, I'm going to bed. (before Phil accuses me of not replying to anything!!)

Night all.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 11:17 PM

I agree with NWNREADER, if you are to exploit a public forum, you need to be more diligent. Expect questions if you post inflammatory information. Otherwise you will put-off the very people you wish to 'convert', or help. If you are not careful, and if you haven't done so already, you will appear to be just a party activist and only in it for political expedience.

I don't doubt your energy, but your integrity gets tested sometimes.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 1 2011, 11:19 PM

Posted by: user23 Nov 2 2011, 08:27 AM

The avoidance of the previous questions with the explanation that Newbury Labour are too busy to answer them will not go down well with the public I suspect.

The statement above will do nothing to dispel the fears of those who think that Newbury Labour is a one man band, hijacked for one person's political, and I have heard some say financial gain.

This seems to be a view shared in other towns of other organisations too.

http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/community/your-view/letter_is_del_boy_behind_plans_for_spalding_1_2854639

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2011, 08:40 AM

There is something VERY sinister about your use of this forum, and it isn't pleasant. You are clearly out to bring Richard Garvie down, rather than challenge his views.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 2 2011, 11:44 AM

The danger of the www is once you press the send button a comment - even if edited - cannot be withdrawn except by an agreed apology.
Your statement adds nothing to your case, and may be regretted without substantiation, I fear

Richard is more than capable of damaging his own case, but you may throw him the occasional lifeline........

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 2 2011, 12:12 PM

I cannot see that the process is so difficult, or demands any of the interaction with Party leaders you mention

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/156783.pdf
http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1588

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 2 2011, 12:30 PM

So where have I gained financially? I've never taken a penny from the Labour Party, or from any project here in West Berkshire. Don't forget Phil, I know exactly who you are and will take action against you if you continue with your behaviour.

Come on Phil, what financial gain?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2011, 01:13 PM

User23's language makes me doubt your integrity Richard. I think user23 is setting out deliberately to discredit you, and I suspect that this is motivated by his personal circumstances. You could, however; help things by focusing better your arguments.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 2 2011, 01:22 PM

And that is why I get so annoyed with these personal attacks. There is absolutely no foundation.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 2 2011, 02:07 PM

An odd comment from the past master of avoiding questions without explanation.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 2 2011, 02:34 PM

So please get back to straight answers to straight questions......

How many signatures collected prior to the September deadline?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 2 2011, 02:47 PM

Around 8,000, which leaves around 2,000 margin for error. Sorry I don't have the precise figure to hand.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 2 2011, 02:54 PM

What do you mean 'margin for error'?

How many did you need to be able to submit?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 2 2011, 03:57 PM

From what I remember, the "target" was around 5,500. The "margin for error" accounts for incorrect signatures, spelling mistakes or handwriting that cannot be read etc. When researching it, the official advice is you get more than you need to allow a couple of thousand for signatures being knocked off by the people at the council who validate it.

Posted by: user23 Nov 2 2011, 05:05 PM

Much as I hate to interrupt you actually answering a question for once I must say it's not my view and I've not seen any evidence to support this theory myself whatsoever. It does seem to be a view held by a few however so perhaps you need to do a better PR job in getting your message across on this matter.

Now, back to your explanation of why you haven't delivered to the voters of Newbury, what you said you were going to...

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 2 2011, 05:07 PM

I still think it's very harsh to criticise anyone in such a fashion without facts to back up such a sweeping statement.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2011, 05:14 PM

user23 bottles it again. What you are doing is disgusting.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 2 2011, 05:59 PM

WBC trained?

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 3 2011, 08:58 PM

Dearest Dickie......

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/156783.pdf

Fact sheet 7 also puts a shadow over what you said about the submission/referendum dates.....

I cannot find the precise verification number, but at around 115k electors the number required will be around 5750 so unless you have been very careless with accepting duds I still find it odd you did not submit, The Information Pack makes quite clear your waffle about needing to consult in WBC is the very finest Belgian version.

Just tell us straight why you failed to deliver?

Posted by: user23 Nov 3 2011, 09:05 PM

So all the signatures will be invalid in around ten months and it will have been a complete waste of the public's time.

From the figures here on the http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1829672.pdf (specifically, Reference 15) I estimate this would waste roughly £3,500 of taxpayers money should this petition be submitted after September 2012.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 3 2011, 09:16 PM

I'm puzzled why you are so concerned for the reason, to a point where you are behaving uncustomary rude. It looks like Richard is not going to give you the answer you 'wish', so I'm left wondering if you have a theory assembled all ready? Why do you think he has failed to deliver?

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 3 2011, 09:57 PM

Rude? Hope not....

Richard said he was going to present a petition for the benefit of the electorate. He did not. In my view the reasons do not stand scrutiny.

Even JC had those who doubted his credibility. His supporters will show his quality answer to those doubts.

Richard does not provide robust and straight answers. He has boundless energy, but his record of product seems to be behind the curve.

Trust me, I am nowhere near the front of the queue when it comes to seeing nothing wrong with WBC, but neither do I see disaster and conspiracy at every dawn. Richard is like a terrier in a room full of rats - chases round and round without actually getting a victory for his effort.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 3 2011, 10:07 PM

All things are relative, and 'cobblers', 'waffle', and 'Dickie' is rude for you.


Yes, I agree, and we have posted this like this many times, but on this issue, you have been especially tenacious. It lends me to think you have a theory, or you are anxious to discredit him. He didn't win any election, by the way.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 3 2011, 10:09 PM

I never claimed that I HAD to consult with the other party leaders, I said it was something I was going to do to see if we could all agree a way forward. That's being constructive I thought?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 3 2011, 10:23 PM

If you are happy with the signatures, what could possibly be in the way? Hand in the signatures, then consult. I'm with NWNREADER here, I can't see a logical reason to hold back, unless it is political, as in, you fear the petition being hijacked by a political body that has a mandate, thus you lose publicity space.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 3 2011, 10:23 PM

Tenacity is, in my book, a positive trait. I certainly have no theory apart from Mr Garvie coming dangerously close to exposing his inability to deliver - certainly not a product his 'customers' thought they were buying (into). His style irritates me intensely

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 3 2011, 10:25 PM

I didn't say tenacity was a bad thing, only that it is unlike you. You are sounding like User23 on this.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 3 2011, 10:26 PM

And I never implied you HAD to consult. You seem to have felt the need. The chances of either Leader agreeing a way forward bring to mind 'snowball' and '****'. Certainly they would not want to be seen to be agreeing with you

Posted by: user23 Nov 3 2011, 10:28 PM

I'm with Capp and NWN here. Hand in the petition or it's just been a waste of everyone's time.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 3 2011, 10:54 PM

Now I am hurt.......

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 4 2011, 12:04 AM

Didn't mean it...

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 4 2011, 11:14 AM

I'm with this lot too.

Not because I really understand/care about what's going on but because I tend to go to the biggest group for protective purposes.

Posted by: user23 Nov 4 2011, 05:41 PM

What's happening then Richard, are you going to submit the petition?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 05:55 PM

The dog ate it.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 4 2011, 06:51 PM

I have an appointment for a brain scan tomorrow - reason I am agreeing with User on this.
I fail to see why it can't be submitted.... again if there is a very good reason please explain for me... and not in WBC speech please, just plain beer and sandwiches language will do!

Posted by: user23 Jan 15 2012, 01:43 PM

What's happening then Richard, are you going to submit the petition?

Posted by: Penelope Jan 16 2012, 11:27 PM

RG's keeping his head sown, doesn't want to get dragged into thr Diane Abbott is she / isn't she discussion. Good on yer Dickie !

Posted by: user23 Jan 17 2012, 10:11 PM

Perhaps he's gone AWOL as his leader now seems to support the Coalition's cuts?

Posted by: Vodabury Jan 17 2012, 10:18 PM

Indeed, if I was not confused before with their multi-millionaire former leader, I am now totally confused as to what the Labour Party is about!

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Jan 17 2012, 10:33 PM

As opposed to this one?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191155/Claims-David-Cameron-30m-fortune-sit-uneasily-taxpayers-So-truth-money.html

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 17 2012, 10:44 PM

Did you also read the last few sentences?

Posted by: Vodabury Jan 17 2012, 10:51 PM

An Eton educated Tory is rich? Hold the press!

And the poor working man's politician is where....? The Labour Party?... who are now also agreeing to cuts in public expenditure?!

I am very confused who to vote for!

Posted by: FactFile Jan 17 2012, 11:30 PM

Did you see the date of the article? Dated before Cameron senior died.

Are you seriously suggesting that Cameron is NOT a multi-millionaire?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 18 2012, 06:51 AM

I don't know, and I doubt you do. He comes from a long family line of (apparently) successful businessmen so I am sure the family shares some of the accumulated benefit of that.
At least, if he is personally wealthy, it does not arise purely because of his political position. That is different, in met view, to (for example) at least one past socialist Prime Minister. Even the current leader of the Opposition is alleged to have benefited from family nimbleness in financial affairs

Is there a 'wealth' criteria?

Posted by: Penelope Jan 18 2012, 10:07 AM

Hold the press ! It's apparently a crime not to be poor (shock horror probe)

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 18 2012, 10:53 AM

Let them eat cake!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 18 2012, 10:57 AM

I think the implication is some members of parliament could do the job for free. The article also suggests that Cameron has 'played' the system as other MPs have in the past. Under the scheme of things, it is something I cannot get too excited about. What we do have, and it is something we have had since the beginning, are MPs making judgements that in most cases, don't adversely affect them. I think we need to understand that MPs have limited power in a global market.

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 18 2012, 01:53 PM

You'll find that more often than not, the cake is a lie.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 18 2012, 01:55 PM

Ooo, all right, brioche then.